17 minutes ago, paco said:

Legal fees

Home studies (3 pre, monthly post)

Background checks

Lead generation fees

Oh... and the little matter of supporting the birth mother financially until the baby is born.

 

That last one makes sense, you want to make sure the birth mother is safe, eating well and going to the doctor to make sure the child is healthy.  BUT its one of the biggest sources of fraud though the process.  There is nothing stopping the mother from taking financial aid only to "change her mind" after the child is born, leaving the adoptive parents high and dry and needing to start all over again.

This happened to my wife's best friend. Almost ended her marriage due to the anguish.

I think part of the issue is that parents who are looking to adopt typically want young, healthy infants, and that's where the demand typically outstrips supply. When it comes to toddlers, or even older children, the demand seems to taper off, especially if there are any behavioral or medical issues with the kids up for adoption. I would suspect it's these types of kids that make up the bulk of those currently in foster care.

2 minutes ago, paco said:

It's not easy.  Plus there is a lot of risk you take on.

 

Maybe I'll get into it more in depth about it one day another day, but we experienced a disruption.  Fortunately, the $$$ lost from it wasn't a huge amount and we were able to keep moving forward and eventually made our way to Ellie.  One thing we did after we successfully placed was meet with other adoptive parents who recently experienced a disruption and shared our story\experience with them as a form of emotional support.  It's heartbreaking when you hear some of these parents tell their stories, sinking in tens of thousands of dollars only for the birth mother to change her mind (her right) and have them wondering how they can possibly afford to continue.  

I  couldn't even imagine. I'm happy it worked out for you.

4 hours ago, vikas83 said:

This happened to my wife's best friend. Almost ended their marriage due to the anguish.

We had a family member that was placed with a child only to have the mother change her mind 29 days later (PA and Maryland allow for a 30 day window after the baby was born to decide if the mother wants to continue with the adoption).  Both of her young children already bonded with the baby and to make matters worse, the one kid is also adopted and for months was terrified that his birth mother would take him away too.   

 

That night I was on the phone with a few of my brothers in law talking about doing a "road trip" down to Maryland. 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think part of the issue is that parents who are looking to adopt typically want young, healthy infants, and that's where the demand typically outstrips supply. When it comes to toddlers, or even older children, the demand seems to taper off, especially if there are any behavioral or medical issues with the kids up for adoption. I would suspect it's these types of kids that make up the bulk of those currently in foster care.

Toddlers\older kids are almost exclusively in foster care.   We were going through the adoption process for well over a year and we saw only one child that wasn't a newborn.  

 

The kids in foster care are often abused\coming from TERRIBLE living situations.  We are considering going through the foster care system (can't afford another adoption unless @vikas83 wants to sell a few of his polo's for us) but it really needs to be the right situation.  Ellie's safety is #1 and we have to be very careful to make sure if we bring another child into our home that the child wouldn't be abusive towards her.

7 minutes ago, paco said:

Toddlers\older kids are almost exclusively in foster care.   We were going through the adoption process for well over a year and we saw only one child that wasn't a newborn.  

 

The kids in foster care are often abused\coming from TERRIBLE living situations.  We are considering going through the foster care system (can't afford another adoption unless @vikas83 wants to sell a few of his polo's for us) but it really needs to be the right situation.  Ellie's safety is #1 and we have to be very careful to make sure if we bring another child into our home that the child wouldn't be abusive towards her.

Financial burden can be a factor as well if there are known medical issues. Don't have all the details since a lot of it is second hand info, but I guess an old friend from high school was looking to adopt after a couple rounds of IVF had failed. They were told about a 4-month old that had some issues but ended up having to pass because the cost of medical care would've been really high (congenital malfomation/birth defect maybe.) Didn't sound like the quality of life would've been the best either, but again, I'm not totally sure of all the details. Sounds like it was a tough situation either way, but in the end it worked out because they eventually ended up conceiving a few years later (not sure if naturally or through IVF.) 

On 7/1/2022 at 7:55 PM, Dave Moss said:

I’d love to hear the conservative argument for 10-year-olds having babies

Nice fairy tale - even Sleepy Joe bought into it apparently.

 

Quote

 

Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a constitutional amendment that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions that U.N. members believe violate human rights?

Democrats

Strongly favor:  20%

Somewhat favor:  19%

Age 19 - 39

Strongly favor:  23%

Somewhat favor:  25%

 

 

Putting aside the insanity of the UN overruling the SCOTUS...the last thing on earth anyone should want is elected SCOTUS judges. The whole point is that SCOTUS judges should serve an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to trying to please voters. If you wanted to put term limits on a justice (e.g., 20 years), I could see the argument for that. But electing judges at any level, thereby making them pawns who need to raise campaign money, is always a bad idea. 

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

There's already a democratic process to indirectly appoint justices to the court. A more direct process likely wouldn't yield much different results.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a constitutional amendment that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions that U.N. members believe violate human rights?

New World Order. ?  I’m sure all the UN members will agree to put their judicial up for rebuke also.

On 7/8/2022 at 9:48 AM, Mike31mt said:

JC was a documented factual person.

 

Actually, it's highly debatable.

18 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Actually, it's highly debatable.

Not really. He's very obviously fictional.

On 7/8/2022 at 11:22 AM, TorontoEagle said:

So those "evil" scientists have found a way to figure out how our land was formed, and a big part of it is by studying rock strata. Geologists deal with this. They can tell when the last ice age occurred, and how the slabs of ice retreated, because water is an insanely powerful element, and it literally carves through rock and leaves a story of when it did so. 

So, if there was a 'biblical' flood, of 40 days and 40 nights, with water reaching over 22 cubits than the highest mountain....there'd have to be some evidence of the water retreating afterwards, no? Considering geologists are able to postulate pretty accurately what happened millions of years ago, certainly they could go back just a mere thousands of years to figure out Noah's bubbameister? 

Now of course, if you study any other religion, almost all of them have some story of epic flooding. Seems the Christ boys were nothing more than plagiarists.

 

There's a lot of evidence that large floods did occur in the Tigris-Euphrates delta thousands of years ago with some regularity. In fact, the fertility of that land at the time is attributable to the extreme weather and flooding that occurred there. The thing is that it's not particular to any one religion; there are many allegorical texts that allude to a similar event, Gilgamesh, for example. Ultimately, you basically just have this intersection of different cultures describing extreme weather events that caused mass death and destruction, and because they couldn't comprehend why they happened, they often attributed it to angry gods. It's really nothing special when you think about it.

Just now, Paul852 said:

Not really. He's very obviously fictional.

The case for a "historical Jesus" is different than what you're alluding to. I think Mike was referring to the former, but it's always difficult to tell with him because, as we all know, he's not always playing with a full deck.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

Putting aside the insanity of the UN overruling the SCOTUS...the last thing on earth anyone should want is elected SCOTUS judges. The whole point is that SCOTUS judges should serve an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not to trying to please voters. If you wanted to put term limits on a justice (e.g., 20 years), I could see the argument for that. But electing judges at any level, thereby making them pawns who need to raise campaign money, is always a bad idea. 

That poll alone shows exactly why they shouldn't be voted in.

I think the Dobbs ruling was wrong in certain ways - specifically I think it went too far, and that Roberts' opinion should have been the majority ruling. Rolling back abortion protections entirely was well outside the scope and a break from the sort of incrementalism that is responsible for the SC. But at the end of the day the majority opinion was still authored by people who are well versed in the law and whose opinions are based on accepted legal theory. 

19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The case for a "historical Jesus" is different than what you're alluding to. I think Mike was referring to the former, but it's always difficult to tell with him because, as we all know, he's not always playing with a full deck.

a 2,000 year old unverifiable series of stories about a man who was purported to have walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead should really be looked at more skeptically than it is.

but that's the nature of faith 🤷‍♂️

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

a 2,000 year old unverifiable series of stories about a man who was purported to have walked on water, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead should really be looked at more skeptically than it is.

but that's the nature of faith 🤷‍♂️

Historical Jesus refers to accounts of the existence of the man himself, rather than any purported miracles or divine acts he may have performed. Mike is trying to use the former as proof of the latter, which is obviously fraught with fallacies and leaps of logic, but he's from West Virginia, so being perpetually stupid is second nature to him.

18 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That poll alone shows exactly why they shouldn't be voted in.

I think the Dobbs ruling was wrong in certain ways - specifically I think it went too far, and that Roberts' opinion should have been the majority ruling. Rolling back abortion protections entirely was well outside the scope and a break from the sort of incrementalism that is responsible for the SC. But at the end of the day the majority opinion was still authored by people who are well versed in the law and whose opinions are based on accepted legal theory. 

Yeah, the ruling itself is fine, the SCOTUS served its purpose as an interpreter and arbiter of constitutional gray areas. But the sort of chicanery guys like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch engaged in during their confirmation hearings was kinda lame. We knew what ACB was up to from the jump, but I actually believed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they said Roe was settled precedent. Makes you wonder what else are they willing to stretch the truth about.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's a lot of evidence that large floods did occur in the Tigris-Euphrates delta thousands of years ago with some regularity. In fact, the fertility of that land at the time is attributable to the extreme weather and flooding that occurred there. The thing is that it's not particular to any one religion; there are many allegorical texts that allude to a similar event, Gilgamesh, for example. Ultimately, you basically just have this intersection of different cultures describing extreme weather events that caused mass death and destruction, and because the couldn't comprehend why they happened, they often attributed it ti angry gods. It's really nothing special when you think about it.

Certainly plausible. I recently find out how a papilomavirus in rabbits (see below) caused a disfigurement that lead to the jackalope myth. Reminiscent of the theory that fears of witches and werewovles were prominent in areas where wheat crops were infected with a fungus that made some people who consumed it hallucinate and act crazy. More recently, sightings of weird phenomena like the flatwoods monster are readily explained by the imperfections of human perception and its pliability when a person is under stress. 

 

19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, the ruling itself is fine, the SCOTUS served its purpose as an interpreter and arbiter of constitutional gray areas. But the sort of chicanery guys like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch engaged in during their confirmation hearings was kinda lame. We knew what ACB was up to from the jump, but I actually believed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they said Roe was settled precedent. Makes you wonder what else are they willing to stretch the truth about.

I agree. However I would point out that generally asking SC nominees how they would rule on a specific case is swatted away, and understandably so because each case should be judged on the merits of the arguments. It's not exactly fair to ask about hypothetical cases in broad terms when the job of being a SC justice often requires nuance.

But to be sure that they agreed that Roe was settled law / precedent during confirmation hearings only to side with Alito on a pretty extreme departure from the typical incrementalism is stark. 

Man charged with rape of girl, 10, who traveled for abortion

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-charged-with-rape-of-girl-10-who-traveled-for-abortion/ar-AAZxNfr

Quote

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A man was arraigned Wednesday in Ohio on charges of raping a 10-year-old girl whose case drew national attention following a doctor's comments that the child had to travel to Indiana for an abortion because of new restrictions in her home state after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling.

The suspect's arraignment came days after some conservatives, including Ohio's Republican governor and attorney general, had raised questions about whether the case was real. Democratic President Joe Biden had highlighted the case last week at the signing of an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion.

A detective testified Wednesday that Columbus police learned about the girl's pregnancy through a referral by Franklin County Children Services that was made by her mother on June 22, and that she had an abortion in Indianapolis on June 30, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

Un-Fing-believable

Lol you guys are the best.

 

Hey no threat to our democracy here, right?  Just abolishing the checks and balances that form the foundation of our govt.

Only the majority of the political party currently in control of the Executive Branch and half of the Legislative branch is calling for this, so no big deal at all.

Where are all the tears and angst about our precious democracy???

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I agree. However I would point out that generally asking SC nominees how they would rule on a specific case is swatted away, and understandably so because each case should be judged on the merits of the arguments. It's not exactly fair to ask about hypothetical cases in broad terms when the job of being a SC justice often requires nuance.

But to be sure that they agreed that Roe was settled law / precedent during confirmation hearings only to side with Alito on a pretty extreme departure from the typical incrementalism is stark. 

No doubt, but acknowledging a 50 year old case is settled law, and then saying you respect stare decisis, is implying you will judge cases a certain way and this ruling seems to fly in the face of that. I would rather they just be honest and say while it was reaffirmed multiple times since then, there are some areas of the original ruling they thought weren't legally justified, but I guess that would expose them to further questioning and throw their entire confirmation in doubt. Maybe it's naive of me to expect someone to risk a career achievement instead of walking a tightrope of technicalities, but they are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

Lol you guys are the best.

 

Hey no threat to our democracy here, right?  Just abolishing the checks and balances that form the foundation of our govt.

Only the majority of the political party currently in control of the Executive Branch and half of the Legislative branch is calling for this, so no big deal at all.

Where are all the tears and angst about our precious democracy???

 It was a poll quoted by rasmussen, but you're acting like it came from the lips of Biden himself. Is there ever a day where you're not determined to show everyone how stupid you are?