Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A good natured challenge for the minds of the pro-life camp!
5 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2009 - 6:03PM #11
Tmarie64
Posts: 5,277

Nov 5, 2009 -- 10:49AM, Damianaraven wrote:


I think you just demonstrated the stigma in question by jumping right into the stereotype that most single mothers have numerous kids with different last names, and "spread 'em" for any guy without thinking. Further claiming that there seems to be a stigma on the "normal" family only makes you seem even more judgemental and bitter.


There are a lot of women out there who were simply abandoned by the men that cared for them and their child(ren). They weren't sluts, they didn't shack up with nine men or smoke crack. They (for a common example) may have had two kids with a husband who suddenly decided that Tammy Twinkletush deserved his income a little more.


I don't care how many people say that child support laws make it too hard to ditch a family. The child support office is not a very compassionate bureaucracy. They're grossly overworked, for one thing. Furthermore, since they're dealing mostly with women, there seems to be an underlying attitude of "if only these hoochies would stop making babies." If you were unfortunate and amoral enough to have a child (gasp!) out of wedlock, then the process becomes much more complicated. Paternity has to be established and believe it or not, there's quite a waiting list for that. Meanwhile, the months and years breeze by and the mothers are left to raise their kids with no help and plenty of contempt.




Well, considering EVERY SINGLE single mother I know has at least 2 kids by 2 different men....  And the majority of single parents, mothers AND fathers, have kids by more than one person.....


As to establishing paternity having "quite a waiting list"... bullshit, there are dna labs in every state.   It's not cheap, but if you want the truth and child support.


No child support is not easy.   No one ever said it was.  However, how compassionate can you expect people to be when everywhere you look there are women with 2, 3, 4 kids or more by different men?  I have a neighbor, FIVE kids, different men, no attempt to collect child support, the men still come around, visit the kids.  Come on... You can't blame the child support system for THAT.  SHE has to initiate the process.  She won't.


The for single dads, child support has the idea that they should just suck it up, and there are probably, per capita, more deadbeat mothers than fathers out there.  (Before any idiot jumps me about that, "per capita", means per unit of population.)

James Thurber - "It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers."
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2009 - 8:59PM #12
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550


Karbie <<   Did you know that the fact that children had been born out of wedlock used to be on their birth certificates? You'd get a copy of your birth certificate, it would say "Bastard"


While this is the first time that I (can recall) ever hearing such a thing, but personally, I can tell you that I was born in the 1950s and while my parents were "un-wed", my dad's name is on my birth certificate.


Karb << --and you were dirty and shameful and your chances of a decent life were jeopardized for something you hadn't been responsible for except as the "Silent Witness" that showed up some 9 months later. If there's a stigma, it belongs anywhere but on the kids.  >>


But yes, that was the attitude of old and it's still alive-N-kickin' in many parts of this country.
Pity that it is.  What's worse, is for those who gleefully loved to refer to such children as "bastards" is rather insidious of human society.  And us, the "higher" of the animal kingdom no less.  To pick on poor defenseless innocent children like that, for shame.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 9:29AM #13
faith713
Posts: 3,892

Nov 5, 2009 -- 8:59PM, Marysara722 wrote:


 


Pity that it is.  What's worse, is for those who gleefully loved to refer to such children as "bastards" is rather insidious of human society.  And us, the "higher" of the animal kingdom no less.  To pick on poor defenseless innocent children like that, for shame.




Yet those who support abortion are doing the very same thing--picking on poor defenseless innocent children like that, for shame. But instead of "bastards", they are called "parasites" and "non-persons".

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John14:6

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.-- John 3:16

"We love Him because He first loved us."--1 John 4:9-10

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear ... "
1 John 4:18
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 9:48AM #14
lulu2
Posts: 454

I believe the first thing we would need to learn is exactly what the reasons are for getting an abortion. Once we see that most of them are a matter of social inconvience or hardship (no financial competence)  rather than medical need, we may be able to focus better on what we may do to help people who feel trapped in a situation, rather than principled in their decisions.


As for the Christian point of view. We are not against sex..we instead are the only ones who are for it. We believe in Pro life..therefore we would have to also be in favor of pro-sex. We however believe sex is sacred. Something to be given thoughtfully, rather than it being used as a recreational activity. We also prefer children to be products of a commited married couple. However the reason we dont accept protection is because our belief in Gods purpose is greater than ours. And that if someone gets pregant, and doesnt abort naturally, than the child was meant to be born. And because we believe all children are gifts from God, how could anyone kill what God has provided them. The only difference Christians have, is that they truly believe more in the Will of God, than their own...especially about the gift of life.

Without the Soul of Christ alive in us...we are nothing but empty shells...
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 10:50AM #15
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Nov 6, 2009 -- 9:48AM, lulu2 wrote:


I believe the first thing we would need to learn is exactly what the reasons are for getting an abortion. Once we see that most of them are a matter of social inconvience or hardship (no financial competence)  rather than medical need, we may be able to focus better on what we may do to help people who feel trapped in a situation, rather than principled in their decisions.


As for the Christian point of view. We are not against sex..we instead are the only ones who are for it. We believe in Pro life..therefore we would have to also be in favor of pro-sex. We however believe sex is sacred. Something to be given thoughtfully, rather than it being used as a recreational activity. We also prefer children to be products of a commited married couple. However the reason we dont accept protection is because our belief in Gods purpose is greater than ours. And that if someone gets pregant, and doesnt abort naturally, than the child was meant to be born. And because we believe all children are gifts from God, how could anyone kill what God has provided them. The only difference Christians have, is that they truly believe more in the Will of God, than their own...especially about the gift of life.




So if a woman determines that pregnancy, childbirth, and raising a child (or more commonly another child), will place her family in dire financial straits, what should society do to help her? Please try to be specific. For example, should we declare that safe housing is a basic human right and that it will be provided if a person can't afford it? That way, a woman wouldn't fear that having another child would put her family on the streets. Should we make health care a basic human right, and provide it for all our citizens? Should we make a nutritious diet a basic human right?


I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph completely. When you say "we don't accept protection" are you saying you believe all contraception is wrong? Are you also say it is wrong for a man to use a condom in order to reduce the chances of transmitting his HIV to his wife? If you mean those kinds of things, do you also believe it is wrong to use antibiotics or other medications that can treat disease, or receive treatments such as chemotherapy if you have cancer?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 12:39PM #16
Bei1052
Posts: 986

You can't. If it were that easy, then the abortion rate in the northeast should be much lower than that of the rest of the country. Instead, the rates are higher, with some states having abortion rates almost double the national average. For example, take New York. New York should have the absolute lowest abortion rate in the country given all the contraceptives they hand out and the amount of money they spend on social welfare programs. Instead, they have the highest, and some parts of NYC have abortion rates higher than birth rates.


*shrugs*


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 1:38PM #17
mountain_man
Posts: 39,332

Nov 6, 2009 -- 9:48AM, lulu2 wrote:

I believe the first thing we would need to learn is exactly what the reasons are for getting an abortion....



The reasons a woman makes a choice, either way, are none of your business. It's a private matter between the woman, her doctor, and her god if she has one.


As for the Christian point of view. ....



The "christian" point of view is irrelevant. Laws or morals are not, and should not, be based on any religious beliefs. You can keep your so called "christian" point of view and apply it to yourself all you want. However it is absolutely wrong for you to make even the slightest effort to force that view on others, or judge others based on that suppsed view.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 2:10PM #18
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

Nov 6, 2009 -- 12:39PM, Bei1052 wrote:

You can't.



"You can't" what? ---It'd be nice to know what (or who) you were responding to exactly.


Bei << If it were that easy, then the abortion rate in the northeast should be much lower than that of the rest of the country. Instead, the rates are higher, with some states having abortion rates almost double the national average. For example, take New York. New York should have the absolute lowest abortion rate in the country given all the contraceptives they hand out and the amount of money they spend on social welfare programs. Instead, they have the highest, and some parts of NYC have abortion rates higher than birth rates.
*shrugs*



*shrugs* ---because maybe it's that NY City alone (the 5-boroughs) has a ga-zillion more people in it then say that State of Montana "for example."  (And not to mention that NY-City has its own statistics that is separate from NY-State statistics.)

And I'd like to know just where in New York it is that "all the contraceptives" are that "they hand out" willy-nilly? ---I mean I've heard of "street-vendors" but I haven't seen any push-carts on the street corners with signs saying they sell or give-out "free" contraceptives.
Plus considering the fact that if it's ABC, well one needs to see a HCP in order to get a prescription unlike a pack of raincoats that one can get at the local corner convenience store so ergo, no, I don't see "contraceptives" being handed out to women like it's a bunch of Halloween candy being doled out for free.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 3:59PM #19
Damianaraven
Posts: 71

Nov 5, 2009 -- 6:03PM, Tmarie64 wrote:


The for single dads, child support has the idea that they should just suck it up, and there are probably, per capita, more deadbeat mothers than fathers out there.  (Before any idiot jumps me about that, "per capita", means per unit of population.)




I'm aware of what "per capita" means, but I don't know how the term can be applied to parenting. I'm sure the number of mothers and fathers are not exactly the same in this country, but I bet it's pretty close. (Anyone feel like looking that up?) Therefore, if there are similar numbers of two populations and a far greater gross number of deadbeats on one side, how does the other side manage to have a highter "per capita" rate of deadbeatery?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 7:32PM #20
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Nov 6, 2009 -- 2:10PM, Marysara722 wrote:

because maybe it's that NY City alone (the 5-boroughs) has a ga-zillion more people in it then say that State of Montana "for example."



We're talking about rates, not raw numbers. 


(And not to mention that NY-City has its own statistics that is separate from NY-State statistics.)



Yes, I know and 93% of all abortions performed in the city are for residents who live there.


And I'd like to know just where in New York it is that "all the contraceptives" are that "they hand out" willy-nilly? ---I mean I've heard of "street-vendors" but I haven't seen any push-carts on the street corners with signs saying they sell or give-out "free" contraceptives.



Link


NYC doubled the monthly number of free condoms it gave away starting with 2007’s redesign, from 1.5 million to 3 million. Sweeney said some 900 establishments currently offer condoms. She added that more than 36 million free condoms were given away last year.



Plus considering the fact that if it's ABC, well one needs to see a HCP in order to get a prescription unlike a pack of raincoats that one can get at the local corner convenience store so ergo, no, I don't see "contraceptives" being handed out to women like it's a bunch of Halloween candy being doled out for free.



Because, as we all know, the pill is the only contraceptive available and is only handed out to men.


NYC probably does more to reduce the instance of abortion than anywhere else, but because it's so easy to acquire, the rate remains high, and that's not a coincidence. Here's another example. If equal pay (Or better pay) and female workforce participation are enough to drive the abortion rate down by themselves, then why do states like Connecticuit and Massachutes, for example, not have comparatively low abortion rates. The reason is because it's harder to lower the instance of something when you keep that action legal. It's not rocket science and it's no coincidence that the abortion rate went down in the 90's when states passed more restrictions on abortion.


For as long as abortion is legal and easy to access, the abortion rate will remain comparatively high regardless of how many free contraceptives you give out or how much easier you make it for someone to raise a kid.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook