I expect that there will be a load of condemnation for this young woman coming from the GA community. The lady raises important issues surrounding the dilemma that potential parents face. She lives in poverty, the father has abandoned his responsibility as protector and provider, and society still refuses to step up with financial support for a woman in her predicament. If we are pro-life, then there needs to be a better alternative than food stamps. The welfare for single mothers is not enough to even "get by." Is that all we have to offer when a woman without family/husband has a child? Are we "pro-birth" or truly "pro-life?" The sour attitude that some conservatives have towards mothers needs to be addressed to go forward with positive solutions for a stronger society. If single mothers truly had financial support, meaning a safe place to live and enough food to sustain life, then even a single mother would be able to raise her child without compromise. I don't agree with this lady's choice, but I understand why she made that choice because society since the 70's or so has actually crushed the relationship dynamics between the sexes, and the corporate entity has facilitated such deprivation among the poor that a metaphorical conveyer belt leads straight to the abortion clinic. A woman who gets pregnant should not have to make the agonizing decision to either abort or give up. Can you understand how morally bankrupt, how utterly devoid of compassion and empathy it is to say that only aborting or giving away a child is the option?
Giving away the child is a noble option, but we have rich white parents with broken genetics spending upwards of 100k on IVF instead of adopting. Adoption should be common but it isn't.
The view on here regarding this issue is sickening. We're essentially leading towards a socialist state for the sake of social piety. No one wants to answer the question of what happens after the bans. I have suggested where our country would be with 375 million people instead of 320...i don't think anyone wants the answer (because most the aborted are impoverished, a big chunk illegal immigrants or African American)
All you get is "God provides" but besides the fact that we're not a theocracy, "God provides" is assuming that everyone is consistently praying and that "manna from heaven" is a reality
It's not..but don't tell them that. So much "compassion" is thrown around here for the unborn..at the expense of endless condemnation to anyone faced with the true cost of "life"
i wasn't talking about your view. I was talking about the endless condemnation for any woman facing these dilemmas or the issue at hand.
Selective welfare is still welfare though. On completely broken systems, many women still pump out children for financial means. Gorilla Glue hair girl has 6 kids. Literally no real means to provide for them and obviously low IQ. How is it right for the taxpayer to be obligated to support her? And how is it fair for say, a single man in his 30s to pay more taxes than she ever will, just because she popped out 6 kids?
I'm heartened that you were referring to the condemnation. Thank you for replying. Now I see where you are coming from. As far as how is it right to support the minority of women who would actually pump out kids for a lamentable existence on welfare, I would suggest that you are supporting the children who are innocent. By supporting her children, who are innocent, I would also suggest that we are supporting our future as a society. Mothers and fathers should raise their children. If a parent is dead, or morally bankrupt and doesn't protect and provide for the children, then, for the health of society, there needs to be an adequate support system. Part of the problem is the resentment that some people feel towards mothers staying at home to raise their children. Another example of the cognitive dissonance that we're all experiencing presently. Do we really believe in our hearts and minds that motherhood is precious? That the innocent child is precious?
Given what we have learned on GA, are we sure that they will be going to loving families? Do all children, especially infants and toddlers go to a loving family? How many end up in foster care? How many end up abused or even sold or murdered? If they end up in foster homes, how many are likewise abused, murdered, or "lost" in that system? Open adoption is a real option, but not always available.
If she was involved at a good church she could probably find the support she needs, If she is willing to do her part. I don't believe it is MY responsibility to support her and her open legs policy.
That's a big IF imo, as many churches are in fact, corrupt. I agree that it would be awesome if it exists, but unfortunately, I don't think it exists with enough prevalence to actually address the problem at hand. And how do we know she has "an open legs policy" as funny as that line is? And it was funny and I'm sure there are those women, but aren't we instructed not to throw stones? Who among us is perfect? Sin is sin, but this sin, if it even was one, results in the blessing of the Creator's child, and how we as a society and as individuals treats women and their children is potentially OUR sin, not theirs. And with 55 million abortions and 12 million alumni from the foster care system, I'd say that as a society, we have sinned, and continue to do so until women are supported to be mothers again, ideally by men who provide and protect, by extended family members if a man won't step up, or by charity if need be. I really think we can solve this if we really think it through. After all, the real body of Christ, the REAL church is within each of us. That's a formidable church when you think about it.
In every other species the parent evaluates resource management, their own survival, and the offsprings survival. Therefore, even amongst intelligent mammals, infanticide is not uncommon.
This is essentially it.
"So I had an abortion. While I don’t regret the decision, I wish that things could have been different. I wish that the supposed help for single moms that pro-lifers claim there is, was actually there. I wish that people would stop calling me a murderer. I know that I did what was best for myself, my son, and my unborn baby. Because how can you subject someone you love, to a life like I described?"
What was she supposed to do? If she has no relatives or friends willing to provide childcare while she works two crappy minimum wage jobs, what is the answer? Oh, yeah, welfare, WIC, CHIP, child tax credits. Yay socialism, as long as we get our natalist theocracy!!
The concept of family wealth has been utterly destroyed so there is no safety net in the typical dysfunctional American family. Individualism and no sense of collectivism has created a system which the cabal has optimized to have people completely dependent on the government teat. The educational system is busting at the seams and is pumping out unintelligent, unprepared useful idiots with no life skills, talents, knowledge, or anything resembling common sense. Healthcare is a scam in every sense of the word from insurance to research to policy leading to "care" (thank you Obama) unaffordable by most. Jobs, energy, real estate, everything has been twisted and corrupted by the uniparty for the sole purpose of enslavement.
What choice did she have? Soon, she'll have less choice than even a bear. For what? Social piety?
You can say "don't have sex" all you want. What do you expect people to do? It is just like saying don't smoke weed, don't drink alcohol, don't eat fast food. Expecting flawed and imperfect humans to live virtuously simply doesn't work in a world that rewards conformity.
I agree with much of what you are saying except to say that support for mothers and children is not the problem. Corporate and government theft is the problem. Spending money on the war machine is the problem. Supporting women to stay at home raising their children is the most expedient way to correct most of society's ills. Teaching men to protect and provide and openly correcting anything less than protecting and providing for one's child is the most expedient way to lessen the need to financially support mothers and children by the state.
a byproduct (or intention) of "women's liberation" was for women to engage in sex for pleasure without any thought of consequence or association with pregnancy.
Edit: to those saying that I’m irresponsible, I had an iud that failed. To those saying I should have just adopted the baby out, I didn’t want to. Why? Because my first pregnancy almost killed me due to complications, and I don’t want to leave my son without a mom. Not to mention the fact that yes, I still would have been homeless if it was discovered that I was pregnant at all.
I love you so I'll kill you.
Without God life is hopeless. How sad it is to be without faith and the knowledge of His love, care and provision in time of need.
I expect that there will be a load of condemnation for this young woman coming from the GA community. The lady raises important issues surrounding the dilemma that potential parents face. She lives in poverty, the father has abandoned his responsibility as protector and provider, and society still refuses to step up with financial support for a woman in her predicament. If we are pro-life, then there needs to be a better alternative than food stamps. The welfare for single mothers is not enough to even "get by." Is that all we have to offer when a woman without family/husband has a child? Are we "pro-birth" or truly "pro-life?" The sour attitude that some conservatives have towards mothers needs to be addressed to go forward with positive solutions for a stronger society. If single mothers truly had financial support, meaning a safe place to live and enough food to sustain life, then even a single mother would be able to raise her child without compromise. I don't agree with this lady's choice, but I understand why she made that choice because society since the 70's or so has actually crushed the relationship dynamics between the sexes, and the corporate entity has facilitated such deprivation among the poor that a metaphorical conveyer belt leads straight to the abortion clinic. A woman who gets pregnant should not have to make the agonizing decision to either abort or give up. Can you understand how morally bankrupt, how utterly devoid of compassion and empathy it is to say that only aborting or giving away a child is the option?
Giving away the child is a noble option, but we have rich white parents with broken genetics spending upwards of 100k on IVF instead of adopting. Adoption should be common but it isn't.
The view on here regarding this issue is sickening. We're essentially leading towards a socialist state for the sake of social piety. No one wants to answer the question of what happens after the bans. I have suggested where our country would be with 375 million people instead of 320...i don't think anyone wants the answer (because most the aborted are impoverished, a big chunk illegal immigrants or African American)
All you get is "God provides" but besides the fact that we're not a theocracy, "God provides" is assuming that everyone is consistently praying and that "manna from heaven" is a reality
It's not..but don't tell them that. So much "compassion" is thrown around here for the unborn..at the expense of endless condemnation to anyone faced with the true cost of "life"
I disagree that supporting mothers would create a socialist state. And what about my view is sickening?
i wasn't talking about your view. I was talking about the endless condemnation for any woman facing these dilemmas or the issue at hand.
Selective welfare is still welfare though. On completely broken systems, many women still pump out children for financial means. Gorilla Glue hair girl has 6 kids. Literally no real means to provide for them and obviously low IQ. How is it right for the taxpayer to be obligated to support her? And how is it fair for say, a single man in his 30s to pay more taxes than she ever will, just because she popped out 6 kids?
I'm heartened that you were referring to the condemnation. Thank you for replying. Now I see where you are coming from. As far as how is it right to support the minority of women who would actually pump out kids for a lamentable existence on welfare, I would suggest that you are supporting the children who are innocent. By supporting her children, who are innocent, I would also suggest that we are supporting our future as a society. Mothers and fathers should raise their children. If a parent is dead, or morally bankrupt and doesn't protect and provide for the children, then, for the health of society, there needs to be an adequate support system. Part of the problem is the resentment that some people feel towards mothers staying at home to raise their children. Another example of the cognitive dissonance that we're all experiencing presently. Do we really believe in our hearts and minds that motherhood is precious? That the innocent child is precious?
There is always adoption into a loving family.
Given what we have learned on GA, are we sure that they will be going to loving families? Do all children, especially infants and toddlers go to a loving family? How many end up in foster care? How many end up abused or even sold or murdered? If they end up in foster homes, how many are likewise abused, murdered, or "lost" in that system? Open adoption is a real option, but not always available.
If she was involved at a good church she could probably find the support she needs, If she is willing to do her part. I don't believe it is MY responsibility to support her and her open legs policy.
That's a big IF imo, as many churches are in fact, corrupt. I agree that it would be awesome if it exists, but unfortunately, I don't think it exists with enough prevalence to actually address the problem at hand. And how do we know she has "an open legs policy" as funny as that line is? And it was funny and I'm sure there are those women, but aren't we instructed not to throw stones? Who among us is perfect? Sin is sin, but this sin, if it even was one, results in the blessing of the Creator's child, and how we as a society and as individuals treats women and their children is potentially OUR sin, not theirs. And with 55 million abortions and 12 million alumni from the foster care system, I'd say that as a society, we have sinned, and continue to do so until women are supported to be mothers again, ideally by men who provide and protect, by extended family members if a man won't step up, or by charity if need be. I really think we can solve this if we really think it through. After all, the real body of Christ, the REAL church is within each of us. That's a formidable church when you think about it.
Even a corrupt church has some good people there.
absolutely!
In every other species the parent evaluates resource management, their own survival, and the offsprings survival. Therefore, even amongst intelligent mammals, infanticide is not uncommon.
This is essentially it.
"So I had an abortion. While I don’t regret the decision, I wish that things could have been different. I wish that the supposed help for single moms that pro-lifers claim there is, was actually there. I wish that people would stop calling me a murderer. I know that I did what was best for myself, my son, and my unborn baby. Because how can you subject someone you love, to a life like I described?"
What was she supposed to do? If she has no relatives or friends willing to provide childcare while she works two crappy minimum wage jobs, what is the answer? Oh, yeah, welfare, WIC, CHIP, child tax credits. Yay socialism, as long as we get our natalist theocracy!!
The concept of family wealth has been utterly destroyed so there is no safety net in the typical dysfunctional American family. Individualism and no sense of collectivism has created a system which the cabal has optimized to have people completely dependent on the government teat. The educational system is busting at the seams and is pumping out unintelligent, unprepared useful idiots with no life skills, talents, knowledge, or anything resembling common sense. Healthcare is a scam in every sense of the word from insurance to research to policy leading to "care" (thank you Obama) unaffordable by most. Jobs, energy, real estate, everything has been twisted and corrupted by the uniparty for the sole purpose of enslavement.
What choice did she have? Soon, she'll have less choice than even a bear. For what? Social piety?
You can say "don't have sex" all you want. What do you expect people to do? It is just like saying don't smoke weed, don't drink alcohol, don't eat fast food. Expecting flawed and imperfect humans to live virtuously simply doesn't work in a world that rewards conformity.
I agree with much of what you are saying except to say that support for mothers and children is not the problem. Corporate and government theft is the problem. Spending money on the war machine is the problem. Supporting women to stay at home raising their children is the most expedient way to correct most of society's ills. Teaching men to protect and provide and openly correcting anything less than protecting and providing for one's child is the most expedient way to lessen the need to financially support mothers and children by the state.
Unfortunately the war machine and natalism are hand in hand. Why do you think even liberals look down on the child free?
Uniparty cabal is frothing at the mouth thinking of 50 million more teenagers to potentially put in bodybags for their BS wars
So true!
a byproduct (or intention) of "women's liberation" was for women to engage in sex for pleasure without any thought of consequence or association with pregnancy.
Yeah they can even do "ceremonies". I have heard the lament: it just wasn't time, come back later. Yeah right.
I actually feel bad for her.