Weekend question
A month has passed since the 2008 elections. Now that the dust has settled, how do you think the pro-life movement should change strategies or messaging, if you think so at all?
For instance, a pro-abortion opinion writer in the NM Daily Lobo wrote that “anti-abortion advocates need to broaden their perspectives” to care for global children.
(She also strangely wrote pro-lifers should encourage more “health dollars….go to international programs to alleviate suffering,” including abortion, but I digress.)
The fact is pro-lifers and Christians sacrifice more time and money to try to alleviate the suffering of children around the world than anyone. Should one of our action items be to focus more energy on PR? Etc.
Dec.06, 2008 7:30 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I really wish the abortion lobby and prochoicers in general would STFU about the whole, “Why don’t you do something for BORN children!” crap. I never in my life spearheaded a campaign to raise $3000 for an antiabortion cause, but did so to get a well for a village in Sierra Leone. I can’t remember the last time I donated a plug nickel to an antiabortion charity (other than giving money to an organization with a particular woman with a particular pressing needs), but I donate regularly to Mercy Ships and World Vision. I PUT MY MONEY ON THE BORN KIDS, DILLWADS! I JUST DON’T NOTIFIY YOU PERSONALLY EVERY TIME.
And I’m *)(*$#&*)()$# sick of people assuming that just because I don’t want women treated like objects and kids treated like trash somehow means that I kick puppies and put banana peels under people’s crutches.
The pro-aborts can go pound sand. They won this election because of a bad economy, a ridiculous media, and reverse racism to the EXTREME. There is nothing wrong with the pro-life movement.
But Christina…you and I are supposed to be adopting EVERY child in the system right now. You know the ones. The unwanted ones that should have been aborted.
I know, it is ridiculous. There was a study posted here a while ago showing that Republicans are far more generous to charity than Democrats.
You’re right, Christina. Because the Hollywood elite through a party for themselves everytime they give money to anyone, and normal people generally don’t, the liberals just assume that we’re not doing anything to help born people.
That really, really, irritates me.
I can’t imagine why you would want to “change strategy”, as obviously the hatefulness and anger posted above was so effective in the election. Now I will STFU, thanks for listening.
You’re right, Bystander, hatefulness and anger was extremely effective in the election. The mindless, insane hatred of George W. Bush has helped the Democrat Party a great deal.
The #1 problem is we need a consistent pro-life message integrated with all genuine humanitarian organizations, delivered over a non-compromised network.
Pro-life means full life.
All genuine humanitarian efforts are based on human life. Remove the common ground of intrinsically valuable human life and the very reason for the organization to exist disappears. This is why PPA is not humanitarian, but parasitic.
Blog arguments are abstract, but feeding children can be seen. What about showing all the children and families that exist now because the children weren’t aborted?
Comparisons – why is it important to retrieve the newborn out of a sewage pit, but ignore him if 3 months earlier mom wants him killed?
What does that look like?
Tim Morgan who created the Volition film at TheDoorPost did a documentary that tells that young man’s story – about how he was saved from the septic pit. When someone kills another person – that’s an abortion.
Hit them in the heart.
Put the onus on them to prove they have one.
Jill – I want you to have the world’s strongest and most technically advanced soapbox to keep exposing the severe hypocrisy of the politically powerful. Let’s fill their arms with the weak and powerless who suffer at their hands; not physically, but in their ever waking imagination.
Carla – I want to help you be more effective in what you do, to expand your message – I want to create a monstrous megaphone, so when you and all your courageous friends cry for your lost children, the world will hear you weep.
Christina & Lila – I want to help you display what you know about the suffering and indignation heaped upon women, to lift the curtain that blocks the light of truth so it might pour out on the vampire-like industry that seeks more and more victims, but is never satiated.
And Carla – when you laugh and rejoice because Christ will reunite you with your children – I want them to hear that too, no matter how much they cover their ears.
If you’re interested in building massive soapboxes, monstrous megaphones or shining a little light into some very dark places – email me: thrufire@gmail.com.
Let’s continue this conversation & forge some tactics, training and technology.
The unborn human rights movement (I think we should call it this; “pro-life” is too vague) does need to change a strategy that has never worked in 35 years. What happened in the recent election is this: 1) the unborn human rights single issue vote is too small (15% of the population). In theory it should be 100%; everyone should care about unborn children. Un fortunately, because of the weaknesses of human nature, most people do not care about unwanted unborn children. They simply do not have an incentive to do so. We have about 30% of the population supporting unborn human rights fairly strongly. We have another 30% who strongly support allowing violence against unborn children. A lot of them are sincere, but most I believe support violence because they perceive it to be in their self interest. Another 40% are in the middle and don’t really feel strongly either way. Therefore, we are dealing with a politically popular form of violence and need to do an extremely good job of organizing the 30% on our side (we haven’t) and do a good job of converting some of the 40% (we haven’t).
2) The large Black and Hispanic vote, which is generally pro-life, always votes solidly against us becuase they vote for Democratic abortionists, believing that those politicians are “on their side”. Actually, the anti free market Democratic economic and social agenda is ruinous to the minority communities but for some reason the Republicans have never gone to those communities and TOLD THEM THE TRUTH. So minority voters unintentionally and needlessly every election year condemn their children to death and themselves to poverty.
3) Swing voters always believe that the man in the White House is responsible for everything (not true) and should get all credit for good and all blame for bad. Thus when the financial crisis hit, George Bush was blamed, even though he not only did not cause it, but tried to stop it. The Democratic Party actually mostly caused the financial meltdown and stymied Republican efforts to prevent it because they realized that if things collapsed Bush and the Republicans would be blamed. This is exactly what happened. The swing voters, very uninformed voters, swung violently toward the very politicians who caused them to lose TRILLIONS of dollars in wealth and our Republican candidates were swept away. The swing voters should have swept away the DEMOCRATS, but did the opposite of what logic would require, as they so often do. The clueless Republicans did not know that the one thing they had to do was: TELL THE VOTERS THE DEMOCRATS CAUSED THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN AND OTHER ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND TO VOTE REPUBLICAN AT ALL LEVELS.
So we are completely at the mercy of clueless voters and politicians, as the abortionists will be too when, as I fully expect, they are swept hard in the 2010 midterm elections.
Clearly, what we have done in 35 years has not worked, because well it hasn’t worked. Presidents and Congresses have come and gone, but the one constant has been almost unlimited killing of unborn children.
The unborn human rights movement has a severe lack of strategic vision and will probably never prevail until it starts doing those things necessary to achieve srtrategic victory.
Joe makes some great points. What is past is past, and we have many opportunities to move forward and succeed if we put our God given talents to work in coming together in a strategic resolve to address this crisis.
One place to start is to educate the public about the origins of our present economic meltdown. One recent study found that the combined GNP lost to the economy due to the 50 million surgical abortions since 1973 would equal 15 trillion dollars. Add the millions of tiny abortifacient caused abortions to the mix and the figure grows exponentially. This lost GNP is the difference between a healthy and robust growing economy, and one that is going belly up. Killing our youngsters, our very future, is not without its consequences.
In today’s headlines the woe of scores of newspapers losing money and closing down reveals one such opportunity. Who is going to replace these as the primary information providers for millions of people that look no further for news? In that most of these papers are mindless water carriers for leftist propagandists, good riddance! But into the vacuum there will be other sources of news, and that is where we come in. As long as those who distort and misrepresent and lie about pro-life issues control the majority of what people digest, progress will be hard to come by.
But Joe, it’s not just about unborn human rights. Who was it holding a 24/7 worldwide prayer vigil for Terri Schiavo? The prolifers. Who is it that goes to bat for disabled newborns being denied care? The prolifers.
We’re about protecting the vulnerable. Though the majority of the at-risk are in-utero, that’s not the whole picture.
Christina @ 6;35,
And I’m *)(*$#&*)()$# sick of people assuming that just because I don’t want women treated like objects and kids treated like trash somehow means that I kick puppies and put banana peels under people’s crutches.
Amen!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jill said: “For instance, a pro-abortion opinion writer in the NM Daily Lobo (wrote) that “anti-abortion advocates need to broaden their perspectives” to care for global children.”
In a spirit of charity and love, we must contribute worldwide, but in reality, we cannot possibly remove poverty and starvation from every corner of the earth. For those people who feel their calling is international, God bless them, but don’t diminish the worthiness of other works done at home. The pro-life movement does not ignore every other cause as we are often accused.
Thank you, Chris. :)
re: Christina at December 6, 2008 8:35 AM
Golf clap for your efforts in Sierra Leone. But the anecdotal efforts of one person, noble as they are do not exucse the “pro-life” movements gross neglect of the actually-living, in favor of justice for the theoretically or theologically “pre-born”.
Yo La, again I point to the fact that conservatives are more generous to charities than liberals.
Also this statement doesn’t make sense:
“the “pro-life” movements gross neglect of the actually-living, in favor of justice for the theoretically or theologically “pre-born”.
First of all, regardless of your opinion as to if preborn humans have rights given to them by our constitution, there is absolutely no debate that they are pre-born human beings. They are not “theoretically” or “theologically” preborn, they are scientifically “pre-born.”
Of course, even had you not made such a ludicrous lapse in logic, your statement would still have been completely false. It has been demonstrated again and again that we care about all life. The fact that stand with your hands over your ears does nothing to change this fact.
There is nothing wrong with the pro-life movement.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 6, 2008 9:05 AM
Except its goals, tactics, and members.
alleviate suffering? You mean helping with basics like vaccines and simple medicines that they should be getting to 3rd world countries instead of birth control, condoms and abortion, which is forced on many of these countries, even though what they need are basic MEDICINES?
“The #1 problem is we need a consistent pro-life message integrated with all genuine humanitarian organizations, delivered over a non-compromised network.”
That’s never going to work Chris. PETA could have been a great ally to the pro-life movement but so many pro-lifers just want hate everyone who isn’t exactly like them in every way. Seriously PETA always leaned towards the Pro-life movement until Palin showed up and started shooting all our furry friends. You could have had every vegan / vegetarian / animal rights activist on your side this election but obviously killing animals is much more important then saving babies.
I can see why though, you can turn that dead bear into a cozy rug but try to turn a kid into a purse and all hell breaks loose.
Okay so they are generous enough to keep their pastor in 6 figures,
Posted by YLT
Yea, Rev. Wright knows how to fleece hum, dude.
Try and think up something original.
Yawn.
Yllas religion has become a business. Kabbalah water anyone?
http://www.kabbalahwater.com/
Geez I get my water from my faucet, maybe that’s why I’m such a b****.
Don’t you think bestiality is a bit more perverse then homosexuality? I mean, we love animals, just not in that way. Hope you figure things out there buddy : )
Posted by: Jess at December 6, 2008 11:29 PM
What type of boots do you wear Jess?
English riding? Western cut?
Besides, your proof of what happens to people who lose mental capacity from convincing themselves that being herbivorious is unable to affect their mental capacity.
Let’s see, Don’t smoke, loves animals, is herbivorous, do you dream of growing a little mustache Jess?
When you wake up, is your arm raised up in a salute position, Jess?
I hear it’s $18.50 for four ounces. How much do you have to drink to get to heaven? I can only afford two ounces right now : (
“Let’s see, Don’t smoke, loves animals, is herbivorous, do you dream of growing a little mustache Jess?”
No Yllas I’m hoping for the full beard!
“When you wake up, is your arm raised up in a salute position, Jess”
No, I don’t sleep.
And I think you meant “you’re” not “your.”
Oh and how do you know if I smoke or not? Are you watching me? Where are you hiding? Come out and face me like a man!
Yllas religion has become a business
Posted by the Jess.
No, religion hasn’t become a business, religion is just a idea Jess.
You just don’t, and can’t study the persecution of religion in the 20th century because the one’s that did the persecution write the history.
The world is quite simple for ya, Jess.
Tis hillarious, narcissistic personalities trying to tame their narcissism by finding a narcissistic religion to confirm their narcissism.
Such as that pathetic, non-theological, narcissist, named Madonna.
After all those years, still trying to inflict punishment on her daddy. Shrinks haven’t cured her, religion won’t cure her, only herself giving money to a cult leader cures her.
Yllas whatever was wrong with her is still there, I don’t think that cult is helping much : /
Oh and how do you know if I smoke or not? Are you watching me? Where are you hiding? Come out and face me like a man!
Posted by: Jess at December 7, 2008 12:20 AM
I leke leving grammar tuids for people like you jess. You pic up up, sniff um, and then tell others they left a grammar tuid on the message bord.
Well, another trait of that dude with a little mustache, coprophilia too, Jess?
You do know who I’m writing about Jess?
I was considering driving out to DC for the March for Life. I was just going to drive in for the day of the March. Anybody who’s been out for the march before know where I could park my family van while we MARCH? Maybe somebody who is getting a hotel and doesn’t plan on driving who would let me park there or something. Thanks
Ok folks, were the personal jabs really necessary? What do they contribute to the conversation or does insulting others give you guys an ego boost. Lets keep it on-topic & civil. Mods?
Ok folks, were the personal jabs really necessary? What do they contribute to the conversation or does insulting others give you guys an ego boost. Lets keep it on-topic & civil. Mods?
Posted by: Rachael C. at December 7, 2008 1:25 AM
I agree. Erase um and then erase all the other insulting post at this site.
Except its goals, tactics, and members.
Posted by: hal at December 6, 2008 9:37 PM
Insulting, demeaning, and typical propaganda.
Edited out by Moderator Bethany
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at December 6, 2008 4:53 PM
Nothing to do with the subject.
edited out by moderator Bethany
Posted by: YO La Tengo at December 6, 2008 11:38 PM
Yawn. Typical propaganda.
Erase those post too mods.
But, they won’t be erased because those post have more worth then pro life post.
Wow, and I thought I was ruthless.
Yllas, I think that people have a right to run their own websites however they want, but I have to admit that you’re right about the pro-aborts seemingly getting a bit more leeway.
I don’t have a problem with the deletion of any of my posts, but I really don’t think they’re any worse than some of the pro-abort posts in this thread. In particular, No Lo Creo’s post about how religions exist just to molest children and trick people.
So let me see if I can figure this out. It’s OK to say that “religious people” or “priests” or “Christians” or some other group are a bunch of pedophiles, but it’s not OK to name the name of someone on this site and level the same charge.
So as far as I can tell, it’s OK to say that all Republicans are pedophiles, or all Christians are pedophiles, or all pro-lifers are pedophiles, or all Democrats are pedophiles, all atheists are pedophiles, or all pro-aborts are pedophiles… but when you say Hal is a pedophile, that’s going to be deleted.
You know, instead of accusing the mods of not being fair, and assuming they don’t take care of the pro-abortion posts as well, it would be nice if you guys could, you know, just try to maybe shoot us an email and let us know about offending posts sometimes.
Obviously, we can’t always be everywhere at once and we may have missed a post or two. Anytime someone sends me an email about an offending post, be it on the pro-life or pro-abortion side, I am always happy to take care of it if it goes against the rules. Our emails are on the sidebar. Give us a little more credit. Do you have any idea how many pro-abortion comments we have to delete on a daily basis? It’s a lot.
And by the way, I have removed the posts in question.
Christina: I can’t remember the last time I donated a plug nickel to an antiabortion charity
Christina, it’s true that there is some incorrect generalizing about Pro-Lifers not caring about born kids.
I like the “DILLWADS” part.
A couple days ago I was trying to pull a brake drum off the horizontal shaft in our centrifuge with a gear-puller, and it was messing up the threads in a hole in the end of the shaft, so I tried putting a nickel over the hole to protect it.
It didn’t work worth a crap – the gear puller’s bolt went right through the nickel. It looks cool, now, like a bullet passed through it – a true “plugged nickel.”
This lost GNP is the difference between a healthy and robust growing economy, and one that is going belly up.
Jerry, that’s an exaggeration, but if you’re wanting “more people” in the economy then by far the best thing to do is to allow the emigration of highly-schooled, trained and motivated people into the country.
“how do you think the pro-life movement should change strategies or messaging, if you think so at all?”
I would like to see a TV station that runs videos and pictures of aborted children 24 hrs per day.
“There is nothing wrong with the pro-life movement.”
I chuckled at this.
Bethany, my apologies. I wasn’t aware that the pro-aborts on here were a bunch of crybabies who actually whine to the mods about posts they don’t like. That kind of behavior is beneath me.
Stephanie, did you chuckle at pro-life Republican Joseph Cao’s victory in yesterday’s delayed Congressional election? I guess the victory of pro-life Cao in an extremely Democratic district proves that pro-life values are on the rise?
No, actually, it doesn’t, because abortion was not a major issue in 2008.
Cao won, in part, because the presidential election was already decided, so Obama supporters didn’t bother to vote. Obama’s not on the ballot in 2010. That means no ACORN fraud or idiots going to the polls to vote for their god. Think you can hold on to your majority when people understand that the Dems are in control of the least popular Congress of all time?
Bethany, my apologies. I wasn’t aware that the pro-aborts on here were a bunch of crybabies who actually whine to the mods about posts they don’t like. That kind of behavior is beneath me.
I actually never said that, John.
What I am saying is that if you (or Yllas) or anyone else sees a post that you have a problem with (as you did), I would very much appreciate it if I and other moderators could be notified about it privately, rather than insulted publicly for not having deleted something we were not even aware of.
I’m just trying to explain to you that wasn’t very fair of you two to make the assumption that we only delete pro-lifer’s posts when that not true.
I’m not trying to attack you, just trying to help you see it from my perspective here. We try our best to be as fair as possible to you and others who post here. I appreciate your contribution to the blog and hope you know that.
A while back I blogged about a global women’s health conference called “Women Deliver”. The goal was to reduce high rates of infant and maternal mortality around the world. Unfortunately, one of plenary sessions made clear that expanding access to abortion was part of the agenda.
Why does it seem like pro-abortion-choicers are always the ones running these sorts of conferences? Put another way, why *aren’t* pro-lifers at the forefront of the movement to ensure maternal and child health? Because let’s face it, we’re not, and it’s a failure on our part.
Bethany, I know I am extremely, extremely obnoxious. I mean no offense to you, honestly. I only mean to offend the pro-aborts, who I see as impervious to reason, a waste of time to talk to, and worthy only of contempt.
I understand that my attempts to offend them often break the rules. I apologize for insinuating that the moderators go easy on pro-aborts who break the rules.
John, no offense taken…thanks sincerely for your apology…and I have sent you an email! :)
“But Joe, it’s not just about unborn human rights. Who was it holding a 24/7 worldwide prayer vigil for Terri Schiavo? The prolifers. Who is it that goes to bat for disabled newborns being denied care? The prolifers.”
Who was it voting for McCain despite his ridiculous health care policies and his complete disregard for the elderly? Most pro-lifers. Who was it that didn’t even notice McCain is totally for government funding of Planned Parenthood, something you all look down on Obama for? Most pro-lifers. Who called John McCain pro-life even though he voted to support abortion providers at home and overseas? Most pro-lifers. Who was it who thought Sarah Palin was “down to Earth” because she goes hunting and slaughters animals? Most pro-lifers.
I think Joe had it right. To me, reading the people on here.. “The unborn human rights movement” is much more fitting.. for most. Not all.
Josephine it is an unborn rights movement because if a person has no absolute right to life, then they have NOTHING. What good is health care if you don’t even have the right to be born?
If all of the dollars spent on contraceptives and abortion were diverted to maternal health care and some sort of public health care for children I think this would help immensely.
We should not be paying through tax dollars, for things that are destructive to our countries and our society. Abortion is such.
Posted by: Jen R at December 7, 2008 8:23 PM
Excellent observation. Seems like a logical thing for organizations like CareNet to move towards.
Patricia, cutting funding for contraceptives and abortions would only result in more babies born to children who can’t afford them. It would only result in more poor, uneducated people. This would hardly “help immensely”. Just the opposite.
It would only result in more poor, uneducated people.
The unfit?
here is a fine example of what millions of dollars donated to the pro choice lobby could buy you, or your girlfriend, wife or sister…when cashing in your PP gift certificates? money well spent? you decide.
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/
“…cutting funding for contraceptives and abortions would only result in more babies born to children who can’t afford them. It would only result in more poor, uneducated people. This would hardly “help immensely”. Just the opposite.”
–Virginia “Weekend Question”, December 8, 2008
As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation….
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
–Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
–Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
Bethany you are way off base with that one. But nice try with the set-up.
No… what we are talking about is people, particulary those in thier teens and early 20’s, who are uneducated and without the financial means to support a child. Having a baby will tend to them at that state. Not the best plan for them, their children, nor society. Much better for them to get an education, be able to support themselves and a family and then have a baby. Wouldn’t you say?
That is what I meant
With the abundance of stupid people in this world- it’s clear to me there aren’t ENOUGH abortions, just based on that.
No, You’re saying that they can’t be good parents unless they meet the point of education that you think they must reach in order to be fit parents.
You think that abortion is a good way to prevent “poor and uneducated people” from entering the world. That is eugenics.
I’m not setting anything up- you set it up yourself.
Can you tell me where exactly you disagree with Margaret Sanger’s quotes?
With the abundance of stupid people in this world- it’s clear to me there aren’t ENOUGH abortions, just based on that.
Why? Stupid people should all die?
No… what we are talking about is people, particulary those in thier teens and early 20’s, who are uneducated and without the financial means to support a child.
Define “uneducated”
For people who claim not to want interference in people’s sex lives, y’all sure do want to interfere a lot.
People who are poor “should” use birth control and “shouldn’t” have children.
People who are uneducated “should” use birth control and “shouldn’t” have children.
Nah, that’s not controlling at ALL!
has anyone ever noticed that conservatives are responsible for war? conservatives don’t help the underpriviledged here at home? conservatives dont help children overseas?
yet, conservatives are the greatest individual and collective contributors to charities worldwide and at home..despite the tax dollars pulled from our pockets before we GIVE?
almost humorous to me is the fact that…pro life time and dollars (given mostly by these heinous, war mongering, stingy, conservatives) are given tirelessly, to protect the sons and daughters of the liberal pro choice movement.
those very conservatives aim to protect you from the link on my previous comment…and yet the liberals continue to whine…while, funneling their own funds into killing themselves off, choice by choice? amazing.
JAN, thank you for your posts. You’ve made so many good ones lately and I just wanted to let you know I appreciate them! :)
Bethany, you are sooooo off base here. Ditch those preconceived notions and listen to me.
I am not talking about “preventing poor and uneducated people from entering the world”. All people as babies are born poor, in the sense that they can’t support themselves and uneducated. What I am talking about is young people having babies before they themselves are ready.
How do I define uneducated? As not having completed the education you need to be able to support yourself (or selves if you are a family)financially. At a bare minimum that would be a high school education. And then depending on your type of employment, you would likely need some post-secondary educations , apprenticeship, and/or work experience. That is what I mean Bethany.
I am not talking about “preventing poor and uneducated people from entering the world”. All people as babies are born poor, in the sense that they can’t support themselves and uneducated. What I am talking about is young people having babies before they themselves are ready.
But you’re jumping in and deciding for them when they’re ready. How is it any of your business? That is what I see as controlling.
How do I define uneducated? As not having completed the education you need to be able to support yourself (or selves if you are a family)financially.
Would you consider the Amish to be uneducated and too poor to raise a family? Most of them stop their education at about the 9th grade. Somehow they manage to provide for their large families.
How is that, when there are so many people who have more than the Amish that they think they “can’t support” a child? In America, if you’re willing to work, you’re not going to go hungry.
My mom’s coming over in a bit, so I’ve got to go get ready. Talk to you more soon. :)
“Why? Stupid people should all die?”
Yes. Willful ignorance is an abomination and must no longer be tolerated.
Ughhhh Bethany. You’re grasping.
No one is JUMPING IN AND DECIDING for anyone when they are ready to have children. We are talking about forcing them to have abortions or locking them up so they can’t have sex. No, we are saying here are ways that you can protect yourself from having a child before you are ready. Again, no one is DECIDING for them.
As for the Amish, you know very well that they live in a world unto themselves. Just how far in life do you think any other American is going to go with a Grade 9 education? What king of work would they do? Could you raise a family on that?
Sure, in this country you aren’t likely to go hungry if you are willing to work. (In fact, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese.). But it takes more than cheap food to raise a child.
Sorry… should be “we are NOT talking about forcing them ….”
Have to go bundle up and walk the dog.
When is “ready for children” Virginia?
I doubt that I have ever been “ready” for children but here they are. You have a list of criteria for when you think people are ready, according to you, right?
Bethany is never grasping.
carla if your child came to you in grade 10 and said she and her boyfriend , also in grade 10 were going to get married, quit school and start having babies right away, would you think that she’s making a good decision?
“(In fact, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese”
That’s pretty much because most inexpensive food is total crap. Look at ramen noodles. They are fried before even packaged, and the nutrition facts that have all that fat and sodium is only for half the package. I know a lot of people that eat 2 packages for dinner. That’s your daily value in one meal. Yeah, veggies are expensive. So yeah, you will be fed if you have even $ .20 in your pocket (for some ramen); but that’s not enough to buy you NUTRITION.
“I know I am extremely, extremely obnoxious. I mean no offense to you, honestly. I only mean to offend the pro-aborts, who I see as impervious to reason, a waste of time to talk to, and worthy only of contempt.”
See! Pro-lifers hate everyone who isn’t exactly like them and they wish they were all dead! Pro-lifers would rather sit around insulting everyone then actually saving babies! If a baby was aborted every time John insulted a pro-choicer I bet he be screaming d*****bag faster then you can write out a check to Planned Parenthood.
And again Jill’s site is obviously only around for people to come and fling insults at each other, John said it himself.
exactly Kate! Thank you
Oh comeon Jess, he isn’t worth it..
asitis, just thought it needed to be said ;)
I hate hypotheticals especially involving my children but I’ll play along. I would not consent to the marriage of 15 year old daughter, nor allow her to drop out of school. If she wants to have sex and get pregnant then I would be a grandma sooner than planned.
Your turn…what would Virginia do?
why not carla? Because she’s not ready? How is she not ready?
If your 15 year old is ready to quit school, get married and have babies whatcha goin to do, Virgina?
Answer the question. I did.
I asked you if you thought she would be making a good decision. You said no. I’d like you to say why it’s a bad decision . Please do.
You know my answer. It’s no. I’ve already said aren’t ready then
Well if I say she needs a good education you will shout BINGO!! right? :)
Asitis, You know what, that is the problem with our society.
My grandmother (and probably lots of other people’s grandmothers) was 15 when she got married and had her first child. She was one of 8 and had been expected to be an adult for quite some time. She was a wonderful mother and she and my grandfather led a very comfortable life. They are now long retired and though her health is failing, they are able to care for themselves with some help.
I’m not out advocating for 15 year olds to get married, but I do think that if they were expected to act like adults, it would not be outrages for them to do so.
The main problem with “teen pregnancy” isn’t really age. The problem is that they are often single parents with little education or marketable skills.
My husband and I had our first child when I was 17 and he was 20. I graduated from highschool (with honors) at 16, and though I had no plans to get married so soon, I did intend to get my life started earlier that the norm. There is no reason why we need to drag adolescence out until 30, or even 18. By highschool graduation we should expect our children to be adults. If 18 year olds took responsibility for themselves and their futures we wouldn’t be talking about the “horrors” of pregnancy at that age. Only because of irresponsibility do we have the problems of today.
Exactly Carla. Or Checkmate! Or Yatzee! :)
So stop trying to bust my chops for saying that in terms of eductaion, for pretty much everyone but the Amish, you need to at least a high school diploma to be ready for kids.
Also, let me clarify that college need not be a prerequisite to marriage or childbearing. Though those who have never worked manual labor may dispute this, there are a plethora of manual labor jobs that pay well enough to support a young family. Some of these jobs even offer money for college. Most have wonderful benefits thanks to strong unions.
If a person is willing to work, there are jobs available, even in this economy. College is not an absolute necessity, though it is helpful to work towards a degree to put yourself in a better place for promotions.
Ooh I love Yahtzee!
I didn’t know I was busting your chops. Sorry. :)
A high school diploma IMHO does not get one ready for kids.
The reality in my state is you have to be 18 to be legally married. Until then, I am the parent and my daughter is the child and I keep her best interests at heart.
Lauren, your grandmother grew up in a different age. If you want to be something more than a labourer or make more than minimum wage job, you should plan on some sort of post secondary education or training. It’s very hard for a family to get by on even two parents working at that level and live in a good, safe place and afford healthcare, etc.
But I do agree with you. The sad reality of teen pregnancy is that the majority are not getting married and trying to make it work with the support of their spouse. They are young single mothers trying to to raise their children, work a lousy job while making due with less than desirable day care arrangements to put food on the table with little hope of getting them to a better, safer place.
Carla, that’s whyI didn’t specifically say “would you allow her” but rather, “do you think she would be making a good decision”. I wanted you to realize “my criteria” for being ready to raise a child is pretty much the same as yours and the rest of society. :)
Asitis, like many who’ve never worked a blue collar job, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Do you know how much someone makes at UPS? Take a guess. What about a machinist? An elevator repair man? A fire man? A medical transcriptionist?
I’ll give you a clue. They all make WAY above minimum wage. All those jobs, save the medical transcriptionist, come with the best benefits one could imagine thanks to strong unions. The best insurance I’ve ever had was when my husband worked for UPS.
Here’s another clue to potential wages. When my husband worked for UPS we lived in a brand new house in a brand new housing development. Just because someone hasn’t finished a college degree doesn’t mean their doomed to live in an inner city slum. There is a wide world outside of an office building, and contrary to popular belief, the people who work in those jobs actually make more money than someone in a post-college entry level position.
The reason I’m so adamant about this is because the “script” in which one graduates highschool, goes to college, starts a job, gets married, waits 4.3 years, and THEN has a baby is the reason so many college women have abortions.
Why not adjust the script so that you can work, raise a family, and go to college? My husband and I have done it for the past 4 years. Sure it takes a bit longer, but it the grand scheme of life does it really matter that you were 25 instead of 22 when you graduated college?
It is not impossible to have a good life as a young parent. That is the message that needs to get out.
Lauren, I have worked “blue collar” jobs to help put myself through college. And in my professional career I spent several years as part of a group that did job evaluation (for compensation purposes) for the whole spectrum. So I know a thing or two. And I actually know a UPS driver. His wife works in a “blue collar” job too raise their family.I did not mean that you HAVE to have a college degree or you are doomed. But you do need to ad least finish high school. And if you happen to live an inner city slum or the backroads of a depressed rural area, you are likely “doomed” to stay there if you don’t have more and are trying to raise kids, especially as a single mother.
Asitis, that’s the real problem. Men who don’t stick around to raise their kids or women who don’t want a man sticking around.
Parenting through college is a lot tougher when you don’t have a partner. I’ll definitely give you that.
It seems to me there are really two types of “crisis” pregnancies. One type is the unwed single mother living in the ghetto next to the crack house. She definitely needs some serious resources. “The script” is the last thing on her mind, she’s just trying to figure out how to get food on the table.
The other is the college student who gets pregnant by her long time boyfriend but who doesn’t feel like they’re “ready” for kids. This woman needs resources as well, but also needs someone in society to tell her that it isn’t the end of the world to get pregnant at 19 or 20, especially if she’s in a long term relationship leading to marriage with another bright, determined person.
“Teen pregnancy” is really an unbrella that covers very different life experiences and I don’t think there’s a one size fits all solution. However, I do believe encouraging all young people to be responsible adults would go a long way in helping both cases.
no diploma gets a woman “ready” for marriage or children.
this is a silly notion
most of our grandparents would not have qualified to have children or get married under those conditions.
And my French-Canadian grandmother was married at 14 and had at least 13 children (willingly!!)
I think lauren is correct when she says that we drag out adolescence far too long.
good grief – anyone with kids in college today knows that the majority of them spend most of their time drinking and partying.
and the degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on for the most part.
Lauren you said you finished high school at 16 and had you first child at 17? You said you wanted to start your life early, but not necessarily with marriage. Did you have plans for a career then? For college? Were you pregnant when you got married?
good post @ 2:19pm lauren
Patricia, that’s not what we’re saying (that a college degree make you qualified for parenting). What we are saying is that an education, specifically a high school diploma at least, is required to be able to support a family financially. And in some areas and situations, you better have more to have any hope of getting your children to a better, safer place.
I don’t know asitis that I entirely agree with you about this.
There are many people with 2nd and 3rd degrees who are unemployed or working low paying jobs.
In the 1980’s a university degree was your meal ticket. I know I graduated and walked into a plum job. Some specialties are like this today but for most it means lots of part time work or contract work at best.
Where I live, the high school is encouraging men and women to go into trades. And being in a depressed rural area may mean the best route is to get a job at 16 and get the experience.
Patricia, it may not be a college degree they go for beyond high school, Patricia but some other form of education or training. Even an apprenticeship.
What job would you get at 16 in a depressed rural area? And to where would it take a high school dropout?
Asitis, sorry for the delay getting back with you I was playing with the kids :)
I graduated at 16 and intended to start school that fall. I had a full ride scholarship to a prestigeous women’s college. I intended to get married early, but not necessarally right out of college. My then boyfriend,now husband was going to school across the country and we planned on getting married after he graduated since he was about 2 years ahead of me in school.
I started college that fall. I was a biology major. Over fall break I came home and got pregnant. So we decided to push those wedding plans up a bit and got married in December.
I had major compliations with my pregnancy that resulted in my hospitilization. We decided it would be better for me to come back to Texas to have the baby and then return to North Carolina to finish school. My school was, shall we say, less than accomidating to pregnant/parenting students but with my husband’s help I was confident that I could overcome their restrictions. My husband was going to transfer to Wake Forest.
Well, over the course of my hospitilization I decided that I wanted to persue nursing instead of biology, but my school didn’t have a nursing point. So, literally, the week before we were supposed to move I went and enrolled at the college in my home town.
After two years there, my husband took his LSAT and scored high enough to go to a top tier school. We mutually decided that it would be better for him to graduate from his original school (UT) than our current school (UTA) so we moved down to Austin. He also decided that he would rather major in mathematics and physics than his original philosophy so that he can persue both medicine and law should he so choose. I’m still doing nursing school, though I took last semester off due to the birth of our second child.
Overall, I am super thankful I didn’t get that useless bio degree! In order for it to be remotely useful I would have had to go back to school for my masters, and in order to really be doing what I wanted I would have needed my Ph.D. Nursing is a far more practical degree.
My husband is happy he is getting a hard science degree instead of a liberal arts, and is also happy that a crazy series of events led him to be an LSAT teacher which led him to seriously consider top tier law schools.
So, things took a slight detour, but I’m so glad they did.
Thanks, Patricia. :)
there are many trades available in rural areas asitis: working in greenhouses, as apprentice electricians, plumber, in construction, hospitals as housekeepers, janitorial services etc
And not every rural area is depressed – infact rural areas are often better off than urban for employment opportunities
They are smaller well connected communities and people know whose looking for workers and so forth..
Asitis, sorry for the delay getting back with you I was playing with the kids :)
I sincerely hope you have a certificate in early childhood education and play therapy lauren!!!
you might NOT be qualified…!! :-D
Haha, well I do have a couple of developmental psych classes, Patricia. Hopefully those will suffice! :p
Did I say all rural areas are depressed? No. In fact, where I live we have some extremely affluent rural areas Patricia.
But I was referring specically to depressed rural areas. Take a drive through parts of the US. It’s quite sad. That’s a disparity that you don’t see nearly as much in Canada. And sometimes over very short distances.
Lauren, thanks for sharing your story. You and your husband are obviously very bright and resourceful and made a wonderful life together for yourselves and your children. Nice to hear!
And now I need to get a boy to the hockey rink….
that’s fine Virgina but maybe people have to look elsewhere for work….
it depends upon what your priorities are…
and yes there are some very depressed rural areas in Canada too, up north, and on first nations land
Thanks Virginia. Have fun at hockey!
Thanks Asitis, have fun at Hockey.
school was, shall we say, less than accomidating to pregnant/parenting students but with my husband’s help I was confident that I could overcome their restrictions.
This is an interesting statement buried in your account lauren.
Can’t remember where I read about this problem but I think the article I read pertained more to athletes although other students may have been mentioned too.
But the idea was that female students were not accomodated when they got pregnant. So if an athlete was on a scholarship that was it- she lost the money.
The result: many women students felt pressured to abort.
it’s a challenge to even be a college student and athlete. Throw pregnant and then new mother of newborn into the mix and it’s easy to see that you wouldn’t be able to keep up the sport.
yes but that’s not the point Virginia.
The point is that the archaic and male dominated university systems are not dealing with the fact that women become pregnant and that they need to be flexible to accomodate these situations..
The article profiled women who resisted the pressure to abort, had their babies, went after the university admin and continued to compete or picked up their studies afterwards…
now that’s true women liberation! to my mind….
Patricia: Where I live, the high school is encouraging men and women to go into trades.
Well, that’s the Bible Belt of Ontario for you….
Doug: kiss off…
doug, are you insane! She’ll fight you tooth and nail for that! I don’t even think pat lives in ON though.
Asitis, but your scholarship shouldn’t be cut unless you would literally be unable to compete. If you were a volleyball player who got pregnant in December, there wouldn’t really be a problem but you might still lose your scholarship.
My scholarship was slashed because I would not longer be an on-campus student. Of course, the reason I would be off campus was because the school didn’t offer married housing. Basically, I got circular reasoned out of 20K/yr.
I don’t know any pat on this board?.,…?????
V: I thought you were at hockey?
lauren: that is very unfortunate
no married housing? wow, that’s amazing!
Pat my point was that I think it’s fair for them to pull your athletic scholarship if you can’t compete for them. I assumed that someone couldn’t do all three. But it sounds like they managed mother/college athlete/student
“My scholarship was slashed because I would not longer be an on-campus student. Of course, the reason I would be off campus was because the school didn’t offer married housing. Basically, I got circular reasoned out of 20K/yr.”
that’s awful Lauren. …jerks.
I was thinking maybe the university didn’t want to pay out to you lauren because maybe in their minds your chances of completing your studies would be lower than that of a single woman with no children?
This sort of attitude was prevalent in the workforce in the early ’80’s where women who got pregnant lost their jobs or pregnant women simply weren’t hired at all.
It’s the same sort of bias.
I disagree Virginia. What about men who become injured? Often their scholarships are held. This situation is blatantly sexist and puts a woman who may have unintentionally gotten pregnant at risk for abortion – which is exactly what is happening…
also it’s not like a woman is pregnant forever, you know.
She has the baby and life goes on.
of course she has the baby…. But assuming she keeps it, that responsibilty and school will keep her too busy to be able to practice and train daily and travel and compete for games.
Dropped boy #2 at hockey practice and now waiting for boy #1 and using iPhone. Nice to know you care though Pat
Yeah, it was a small women’s college so there was no coed housing of any sort.
Their rationale for slashing my schoarship was that I would need less funds since I wouldn’t be paying on campus housing. Of course, that neglects the high cost of off campus housing, but I would have been ok with that had the slash only affected the portion of funds designated for housing.
Instead, they cut it further, and I lost even more. I also lost my work study becuase it was only for on campus students and my meal plan.
Because, you know, parenting students don’t need such things.
lauren to be quite honest I am completely disgusted!
sounds like typical university elite thinking!
I think we can all agree that regardless of the abortion position, that colleges/uni. should so a better job of supporting students who are parents, or married.
I think we can all agree that regardless of the abortion position, that colleges/uni. should so a better job of supporting students who are parents, or married.
Posted by: Danielle at December 8, 2008 5:12 PM
Yep. My college had some fairly nice married student housing, and on campus daycare. Seems to make sense.
mine did too hal! I have good friends who lived there and sent their firstborn to campus daycare. Nice community…. Lots of foreign grad students too which made for great potlucks!
I think we can all agree that regardless of the abortion position, that colleges/uni. should so a better job of supporting students who are parents, or married.
Posted by: Danielle at December 8, 2008 5:12 PM
yes and this is certainly the norm in Canada.
I’m mean for heaven’s sakes, high schools have daycare centres for the children of staff and students…
Feminists for life is trying to get US schools to have better resources, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.
Danielle, you’re right that it is definitely an instance where we can all work together.
I should have a preview for my movie up by christmas, by the way.
Hope to get the final draft out by the end of my holiday break! I’ll let you know..
Patricia: Where I live, the high school is encouraging men and women to go into trades.
“Well, that’s the Bible Belt of Ontario for you….”
Patricia: Doug: kiss off…
:: very evil laugh ::
Asitis: Doug, are you insane! She’ll fight you tooth and nail for that! I don’t even think pat lives in ON though.
I was just being a brat. ; )
Tell you what, though, I’ve worked in parts of Ontario where there was no doubt. This is like west of Toronto, and north of London, much of it farm country, going up towards Owen Sound. Bigtime Bible Belt.
PIP, cool, looking forward to it.
that’s what I know as the Ontario Bible Belt too Doug! I lived on the edge of it…. Not close enough to the vortex to get sucked in though obviously!
hahaha. That looks about right!
It’s a pretty weak vortex though.
But Beware!
http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~dwwilson/jaws.mid
and I’ve worked in areas north of Peterborough where there are 7 churches per small village but no ever calls it the Bible belt…..
it’s a TO term because of course liberal torontonians believe that they run Canada!
And they can’t stand to think that some other parts of Canada might now being doing that….hehe…
asitis/V: you just needed to get out of TO more honey when you were younger….!!! (and stop reading the Glob and Mail!!)
Doug @ 4:30pm: nice to see and updated pic of yourself! You’ve obviously improved with age.
You’re welcome, Patricia, and one of these days I’m gonna get that damn James Bond!
Doug, love the Jaws photo! Perfect!
Pat, Peterborough isn’t in the ON Bible Belt
We so miss the Globe and Mail! It’s one of the things visitors bring us.
Oh so now “Ontario Bible Belt” is a Toronto term? I thought you said it was concocted by a writer for the London Free Press? I thought you said ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in Ontario used the term. Actually called me an idoit for that. Hmmmm…. who’s the idiot Patricia?
You must live somewhere where you have to get the national version of the Globe. Poor thing…
I worked in Canada from 1986 to 1994 and heard the term several times during those years.
From CTV:
http://tinyurl.com/5bbsz6
Updated Thu. Jun. 17 2004 11:29 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
An Ontario Liberal MP has broken party ranks and spoken up in favour of traditional marriage with a full-page newspaper ad in his riding.
“If you don’t stand up for what you believe, what good are you,” said John O’Reilly, the incumbent in the central Ontario riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.
The riding is two-and-a-half times larger than Prince Edward Island and is considered to be heart of Ontario’s bible belt.