Pro-Life Conservatives WILL Take In Babies That Are Not Aborted

Eli Boyd: Adoption Day, July 2017

It's a lie that pro-life conservatives don't want to adopt unwanted babies. Progressives see through their own behaviors and attitudes. Many of the most vehement pro-abortion activists simply don't want babies themselves and can't understand anyone who would want to adopt. 

But we over on the Christian Conservative side do embrace adopted kids. Christian families of all kinds take babies and children into their homes all the time - babies like my grandson Eli. Our church in Tyler loved this little guy from the time Grieta Talios took him in as a foster kid at his birth. Grieta began taking in medically fragile babies a short time after her husband passed away. She became a leading foster parent in the area at an age when most of us retire, specializing in crack babies and kids with genetic and physical issues. And God bless her, she picked out my daughter and son-in-law to take in Eli. She gave him a great start his first year, but soon began handing off Eli to Meghan at church. I think the rest of the church was kind of in on the plot, making sure Meg and Eli got together often during church and church activities.

Much loved by Grammy & Poppy

After a time, this little fellow became so dear to my daughter and son-in-law that they couldn't live without him. They'd fallen in love and shortly after his first birthday, signed up to be his foster parents. Months later, they and half the church crammed into the courtroom on his adoption day as witnesses. 

Nobody can tell me pro-life Christians won't welcome the little guys with open arms into their congregations. The Tyler SDA Church has practically adopted Eli as well. Meg is never short for baby sitters and playmates for him. His grandparents (that's us) adore him and do our best to spoil him. I wouldn't mind if they got another one (hint, hint). If we weren't so old and arthritic, we'd probably have picked up an adopted child ourselves along the way. As it was, we started and managed two day care centers (one that doubled as a senior day center). We worked with special needs kids and several that had been kicked out of other daycare centers. I spent 9 years helping start one treatment center and working at two residential treatment centers for children with multiple psychiatric, physical and emotional disabilities. Sheila worked with seniors with age-related disabilities. We raised 3 kids of our own and they worked with children themselves at daycare centers, treatment centers, Boys & Girls Clubs and in youth groups. Lots of our "kids" still write us and follow us on Facebook. Many have gone on to become teachers, therapists, nurses, firemen and artists. We are proud of them all.

My young cowboys circa 1984

Millions of innocent babies have been lost during the abortion epidemic. I know the estimated two million families that want to adopt would have taken in many of those lost children. If we don't get them here, in Heaven and the New Earth, I think God will raise them and give them to new parents in the new world. God can certainly give some of them to me - 10 at a time if He would, so I can raise a ball team or a crew for the schooner I plan to build. What a joy to raise kids in heaven or the new Earth. (They'll be dogs and cats and horses there too).

Sheila and her seniors.

So, if one of the guys, that posts memes about how cruel conservatives are unwilling to take in unwanted children, drops such an accusation on your newsfeed, tell them they're wrong. We don't just take in American babies either. We go all over the world helping children and families anywhere we can. The pro-abortion folks just don't know us very well. They look at us through their own prejudices and beliefs. We, who choose life, put our money, our time and often our very lives on the line where our beliefs are concerned. We don't just talk about it or vote for people who claim they will do all that pesky hard work helping people on our behalf. We can be bothered. And when we are, we do what needs doing ourselves. We don't wait for the government to take 40-60% of the money in admin costs and then take decades to get around to doing the job the money was taxed for. Jesus told us to do it ourselves, to visit the poor and sick and prisoners. To care for widows, orphans and the unwanted. Hard to believe for a progressive maybe, but for us, it is our great joy to obey.

© 2022 by Tom King

Margaret Sanger Never Got Nekkid To Make Her Point.

For it is never the intention of such philanthropy
to give the poor over-burdened and often
undernourished mother of the slum the
opportunity to make the choice herself,
to decide whether she wishes time
after time to bring children into the world.
- Margaret Sanger

Emily Ratajkowski* (whoever she is) just posted a naked picture of herself on social media in order to "protest" Alabama's strict new anti-abortion law. Not that she's ever been averse to shedding her clothes to get attention. In order to explain how getting nekkid teaches pro life supporters a lesson, Ms. Ratajkowski says, referring to the old white patriarchy in the Alabama legislature, "These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce."

And there it is!  The Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood agenda in a nutshell - prevent women of low economic "opportunity" the right to choose to not reproduce."  A little more nuanced than Margaret, Emily swirled a lot of buzz words together there to essentially say what Margaret used to say about low women choosing not to reproduce. The old eugenics theory claimed we could improve the human breeding stock that way. 

"Birth control," said Ms. Sanger, "Is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Sanger, herself, had a horror of abortion. Or at the least, she used the Christian horror of abortion to promote providing massive contraception among black and other minority communities (along with accompanying pro-contraception propaganda aimed at those groups of folks she saw as "human weeds"). It's ironic that the institution Sanger founded, now relies on abortion as its primary population control tool when she feigned disgust with the practice.

The left is rapidly becoming incoherent in its message on the subject of abortion save on the one constant refrain. "Women must have the right to murder their babies in their wombs." This belief, they claim, gives them moral superiority over the rest of us. Somehow anything they do, whether it's public nudity, vagina headgear or shrieking incoherently somehow proves the point that the so-called "pro-choice" crowd is better than anyone who disagrees. Meanwhile the left babbles about a woman's rights to kill, takes off its clothes (a lot) and tries to conduct a coup against a duly elected president. And, amazingly, they feel morally superior to us church-going folk who think all of that stuff is just plain wrong.

The nation is a tinder box right now and there are too many irrational people pouring gasoline on everything and waving around lighted matches. Something bad will come of this massive effort by the left to divide the nation against itself, mark my words.

© 2019 by Tom King

* I did not include Ms. Ratajkowski's photo with this. If you wish to see her in various stages of undress, simply do a browser image search on her name.  It sort of dilutes the whole "Lady Godiva" aspect of Ms R's protest given the number of nekkid pictures of her that are out there. Given her history, Emily's whole nude protest is like.................."Meh? Seen it."

Margaret Would Have Been So Proud

Margaret Sanger - eugenics enthusiast

In 2012 in New York City alone, out of 56,000 pregnancies among black mothers, 31,328 were aborted and 24,758 were born. There were more black babies killed by abortion than were born. (source: New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene)

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/02/tragic-black-babies-aborted-born-new-york-city/#RAlogFiBD82httOP.99

It's interesting that conservatives are the only ones appalled by these numbers and the very people who accuse us of racism are the ones promoting abortion on demand. Margaret Sanger would be so proud of white liberal progress toward reducing what she called "...that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." 

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and a staunch believer in eugenics. She is celebrated as a hero by the progressive left to this day.  And, in case you're confused as to who she is talking about in the quote above, here, in her own words, is her plan for reducing the numbers of "that grade of population".

• "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."  

Who voted solidly for every advance in the rights of black Americans throughout American history?  It was conservative Republicans. Who voted against those rights right up until LBJ came up with a scheme to, in his own words, "...have Negroes voting Democrat for the next 200 years"? 

It certainly wasn't conservative Republicans.

Who wrote the Jim Crow laws?  Who enforced segregation? What party's governors fire-hosed civil rights protesters? What party still treats blacks, not as citizens, but as a separate (but supposedly equal) voting block? What party did Dr. Martin Luther King belong to until the day of his death. (Hint: he wasn't Democrat.)

The statistics from New York show just how successful progressive liberals have been at limiting the growth of the black population. With the horrific rate of abortions, the percentage of blacks in the American population has successfully been limited to somewhere between 11-13%. There's a reason blacks never became a third to a half of the American population as many population growth experts have predicted in the past.

Plans to limit the numbers of black citizens, hatched back in the early 20th century by eugenics enthusiasts like Margaret Sanger and other progressive socialist "liberals" have come to fruition. The numbers of people of color or diminished social standing (the poor) are being "managed" at the cost of literally millions of tiny little lives.

Sounds like a holocaust to me and it's not conservatives who are running the death chambers.

God help us that we have stood by and allowed this to happen.

© 2014 by Tom King

Person or Property - What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

Mom, Meghan and Dad three decades post-choice

A headline I saw recently announced that 694 anti-women's rights bills had been introduced in the past 4 years by evil Republican legislators.  You almost expect some bills calling for repeal of the right to vote or the right to drive cars or own property.  Every one, it turns out, is a bill seeking to curb abortions in some way or other.  Several of these "anti-women's rights" bills are about late term abortions, partial birth abortions or killing aborted fetuses that accidentally survive the procedure.

On the flip side of the debate, pro-lifers could say that 694 bills have been introduced to protect the rights of unborn children.

And therein lies the problem and the real core of the argument.  The problem with this whole debate is that it is basically a disagreement over a fundamental religious/philosophical belief.

When is it that life does begin? At what point does a newly conceived child get that "Get out of being arbitrarily killed" card.  At conception?  At six months?  When it shoves its head out of the birth canal successfully?  When it's two years old and can sass you  back as one NYSU professor has suggested.

It's a sticky debate and not quite so cut and dried as either side suggests.  Pro-life folk believe they ARE protecting rights when they support such bills.  Pro-choice folk believe they are protecting the rights of women to do what they want with their own bodies, especially where non-sentient bits of not fully formed human protoplasm are concerned.

If we were able to grow all of our kids in test tubes, so that reluctant mom's could hand them off to a lab somewhere and make them someone else's problem, things would be much easier.  Making babies would no longer have to impinge on the Mom's right to an uninterrupted career, to a stretch mark free abdomen, to avoid financial discomfort, to date guys without freaking them out or to avoid morning sickness.

Even the form of the debate is problematic. We're having a debate over what is basically a religious concept in a political forum and the loyal opposition doesn't want anything to do with religion. The trouble is that science will never be able to answer the question to anyone's satisfaction.  For all practical purposes, this issue is about when we say life becomes sacred.  God may have his opinions, but He doesn't shoot down flaming thunderbolts for individual acts that he considers evil.

Let's be clear about what we're arguing about.  We're arguing over when life begins. There is no consensus.  It's an important issue. For instance, if someone injures a pregnant woman and kills the child or "fetus" (if the idea of it being an unborn child makes you uncomfortable) then can that person be charged with murder or merely assault?  Does whether or not the murderer gets charged with murder depend on whether the woman says she wanted the child (fetus) or not?  What if she really was planning an abortion and didn't tell anyone and wants to make sure the blackguard pays the full measure of the law?  Should that power be given to one sex and one sex alone? 

If a fetus is not a person, then do men have the right to demand that a "fetus" which is half theirs be aborted if they do not want it. Do they have the right to withdraw their genetic material? It would seem that if indeed a fetus is an inanimate object and not a person, then that makes the whole issue a debate over right of ownership of the embryo. If so, then can a man prevent an abortion simply because he "owns" half the embryo? Are we prepared to go that far in depersonalizing unborn fetuses?

Sadly, this is one of those issues that God will have to decide and one issue which the side which

holds the minority opinion will have to live with when they are outvoted in this far from perfect world. I have a daughter (see picture above) that some panicked relatives told us we should abort because we happened to be in financial trouble at the time of her conception. I look at her face and am appalled that anyone could have suggested such a thing. It is why I will never be able to come to terms with abortion of any child who could have survived to become a Daddy's pride and joy. 

We have reached an impasse. In a civilized country we would vote and be done with it.  After all, there's no other way to solve the problem than to decide among ourselves what the law will be and then to live our lives and at the end to answer to God for our decision.

I, myself, choose life!  Always life if a life can be saved no matter how small. What God does with that life is up to him. My job is to cherish the life that has been placed in my care whether I was ready or not, comfortable with the responsibility or not.


I'm just saying.

Tom King  (c) 2013