Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?
1. Fixed.
2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.
C'est la DEATH.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?
1. Fixed.
2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.
C'est la DEATH.
If these fetuses really are living souls, then they have never had a chance to sin on earth, and abortion will send them straight to heaven. So STFU about it, and find something productive to do. Like how about actually helping the mothers with real live children. Some assistance with child care and health insurance wouldn't go astray.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*
Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.
Imagine if we all took personal responsibility for our behavior and stopped blaming others?
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*
Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.
Imagine if we all took personal responsibility for our behavior and stopped blaming others?
Taking personal responsibility is precisely what pregnant women are doing, when they conclude they are unable to provide an adequate environment for a child and therefore choose to abort.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*
Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.
Imagine if we all took personal responsibility for our behavior and stopped blaming others?
Taking personal responsibility is precisely what pregnant women are doing, when they conclude they are unable to provide an adequate environment for a child and therefore choose to abort.
Hmm. I think that taking personal responsibility would involve not getting pregnant if you felt that you were unable to provide an "adequate environment" for a child.
If a woman feels that she can't provide an adequate environment, there are adoption agencies that place babies with families that can.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?
1. Fixed.
2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.
C'est la DEATH.
If these fetuses really are living souls, then they have never had a chance to sin on earth, and abortion will send them straight to heaven. So STFU about it, and find something productive to do. Like how about actually helping the mothers with real live children. Some assistance with child care and health insurance wouldn't go astray.
The liberal solution to everything: more government programs.
How about more individual responsibility. What do you have against that?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
what a knee-jerk and sensational thing to say rip *yawn*
Imagine if all this crazy energy devoted to opposition of abortion was re-directed at making the lives of young mothers less difficult and stressful. I'm thinking of things like affordable child care, affordable health insurance, availability of employment with a living wage, and so on. I think you would actually see a decline in abortions, because mothers would feel more confident bringing a child into the world.
Imagine if we all took personal responsibility for our behavior and stopped blaming others?
Taking personal responsibility is precisely what pregnant women are doing, when they conclude they are unable to provide an adequate environment for a child and therefore choose to abort.
Hmm. I think that taking personal responsibility would involve not getting pregnant if you felt that you were unable to provide an "adequate environment" for a child.
If a woman feels that she can't provide an adequate environment, there are adoption agencies that place babies with families that can.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you condone partial-birth abortion and the abortion of 45 million fetuses since 1973?
1. Fixed.
2. Yes, I fully condone the above. It's an unfortunate necessesity. C'est la vie.
C'est la DEATH.
If these fetuses really are living souls, then they have never had a chance to sin on earth, and abortion will send them straight to heaven. So STFU about it, and find something productive to do. Like how about actually helping the mothers with real live children. Some assistance with child care and health insurance wouldn't go astray.
The liberal solution to everything: more government programs.
How about more individual responsibility. What do you have against that?
The fundamentalist 'solution' to everything they define as a problem: ban it.
How about getting your nose out of other people's business (and your hands off other people's wombs). What do you have against that?
Originally posted by: Whaspe
those with good conscience say the only definitive starting point is conception.
Originally posted by: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
By the way, in order to go straight to heaven, you have to be baptized first.
Originally posted by: Whaspe
And what of the man crucified next to Jesus? Was he baptized.
aidanjm misses the point. As developement is a continuum and as each individual developes at a rate consistent with their genetic makeup and enviroment (nutrition, nurture), there is no clear cut off point for the switch between "non-sentient" and "sentient." As such allowing abortion on such grounds allows the murder of children, handicapped persons, alzheimer patients. Essentially you have opened pandora's box. The brain never stops developing over the course of a lifetime and basing a cutoff on age or size completely ignores the science. As such is the case, several arguments can be made for implantation being the change between a grouping of cells and a human as the cells have chosen to implant. However this is still fraught with problems and those with good conscience say the only definitive starting point is conception.
Being humble is not the same thing as being humiliated. Asking for help from an organization is hardly the equivalent of pan handling on the streets. In your case, you chose to carry out the action that led to the conception of the handicapped child. The fact that he's handicapped certainly is not your fault, but it is equally not the fault of society that you conceived at all. You don't want to be penalized for your actions, which you freely chose, yet you would penalize society for something over which they had no control.Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Why should I or any other family be forced to be "humilated" in order to receive some supports for a child born handicapped thru no fault or wrong doing? I know darn few families who can foot a bill that can run into the millions to care for one of these kids, heck some premies now cost 1 mil just to bring home from the hospital,that's not counting a single penny for early intervention,ongoing special medical care, speech,physical,occupational therapy, specialized daycare etc.
If disabled children are so "special" if they're "gifts from God" then why must their parents walk the streets with a begging bowl to get help for them ?
Unfortunately, teaching birth control is exactly what abortion providers do. The students are taught that the use of birth control products mitigates the personal responsibility inherent in the act. Then, when the product fails, the student is once again beholden to the same industry to relieve them of their problem. It's not a coincidence that Planned Parenthood is both the #1 abortion and #1 condom provider worldwide. Young people need to be taught that they should not partake in an action until they are prepared to accept full responsibility for possible outcomes of that action.Originally posted by: tss4
I believe personal responsibility is a great idea. And to encourage it we should be teaching birth control in sex education classes instead of this abstinance only crap. With the age of people getting married going up well into the late 20 can you really imagine a 27 year old virgin? Its a pretty unrealistic idea, but I think Rip is right about teaching people how to be responsible while sexually active. That way they won't need the abortion.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Being humble is not the same thing as being humiliated. Asking for help from an organization is hardly the equivalent of pan handling on the streets. In your case, you chose to carry out the action that led to the conception of the handicapped child. The fact that he's handicapped certainly is not your fault, but it is equally not the fault of society that you conceived at all. You don't want to be penalized for your actions, which you freely chose, yet you would penalize society for something over which they had no control.Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Why should I or any other family be forced to be "humilated" in order to receive some supports for a child born handicapped thru no fault or wrong doing? I know darn few families who can foot a bill that can run into the millions to care for one of these kids, heck some premies now cost 1 mil just to bring home from the hospital,that's not counting a single penny for early intervention,ongoing special medical care, speech,physical,occupational therapy, specialized daycare etc.
If disabled children are so "special" if they're "gifts from God" then why must their parents walk the streets with a begging bowl to get help for them ?
Note that I don't necessarily agree that you shouldn't be extended any help by the government, but the above argument has substantial merit (I disagree that society has no role to play in your decision, but that's another debate).
Unfortunately, teaching birth control is exactly what abortion providers do. The students are taught that the use of birth control products mitigates the personal responsibility inherent in the act. Then, when the product fails, the student is once again beholden to the same industry to relieve them of their problem. It's not a coincidence that Planned Parenthood is both the #1 abortion and #1 condom provider worldwide. Young people need to be taught that they should not partake in an action until they are prepared to accept full responsibility for possible outcomes of that action.Originally posted by: tss4
I believe personal responsibility is a great idea. And to encourage it we should be teaching birth control in sex education classes instead of this abstinance only crap. With the age of people getting married going up well into the late 20 can you really imagine a 27 year old virgin? Its a pretty unrealistic idea, but I think Rip is right about teaching people how to be responsible while sexually active. That way they won't need the abortion.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about him as a child, as that was the discussion at hand. In any case, I still strongly recommend asking for help from a non-government source. If the government made a promise and has now reneged, why do you insist on implementing more government programs that have the same purpose and likelihood of failure?Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What "responsibility" do I have to somebody who's legally an adult ?
No, at age 22, the burden shifts from me over to the collective "we".
Btw, families now, sick of waiting decades for the promised but never forthcoming help from the state have start suing, they've also simply begun the practice of packing up the autistic person's belongings,driving him to the DMR office and telling the case manager that they are now no longer welcome in the parent's home...it's pretty amazing how fast a placement gets found then.
Rough ? yes but a lot less rough than finding yourself in your 80's no longer able to physically control
a developmentally disabled adult male.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Sorry, I thought you were talking about him as a child, as that was the discussion at hand. In any case, I still strongly recommend asking for help from a non-government source. If the government made a promise and has now reneged, why do you insist on implementing more government programs that have the same purpose and likelihood of failure?Originally posted by: Geekbabe
What "responsibility" do I have to somebody who's legally an adult ?
No, at age 22, the burden shifts from me over to the collective "we".
Btw, families now, sick of waiting decades for the promised but never forthcoming help from the state have start suing, they've also simply begun the practice of packing up the autistic person's belongings,driving him to the DMR office and telling the case manager that they are now no longer welcome in the parent's home...it's pretty amazing how fast a placement gets found then.
Rough ? yes but a lot less rough than finding yourself in your 80's no longer able to physically control
a developmentally disabled adult male.
So you're saying the abortion of such children is desirable or even necessary? Is your son's life worth living, in your opinion?Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Private programs are not going to provide the type of ongoing assistance he's likely to need as an adult. New government programs don't need to be created, the existing ones simply need adequate funding to do fufill their mandates.
Knowing at age 22 what sorts of help the disabled young adult will receive on an ongoing basis makes it easier for the family to plan/structure their own contribution to the mix.
There are many advantages to supervised living/group home placement for kids like my son at age 22, it often helps them become far more independent in their daily living skills and able to do more.It also gives the casemanagement time and the family a real idea as to how far the young adult will go in terms of his ability to live on his own before the parents die... that's important info in terms of the family's estate planning.
Had my son received more supports early on, he might well need less in terms of services and caregiving down the road.If we as a society don't pay for the developmentally disabled as children will can be assured we will pay far more for them as adults because their functioning level will be lower.
We as a society are increasingly unwilling to provide supports to our nation's disabled children now, I cannot fathom what would happen if Roe is overturned and we are faced with the prospect of thounds more being born every year, to say nothing of our foster care system which is already in crisis,unable to meet the needs of abused/neglected children
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Being humble is not the same thing as being humiliated. Asking for help from an organization is hardly the equivalent of pan handling on the streets. In your case, you chose to carry out the action that led to the conception of the handicapped child. The fact that he's handicapped certainly is not your fault, but it is equally not the fault of society that you conceived at all. You don't want to be penalized for your actions, which you freely chose, yet you would penalize society for something over which they had no control.Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Why should I or any other family be forced to be "humilated" in order to receive some supports for a child born handicapped thru no fault or wrong doing? I know darn few families who can foot a bill that can run into the millions to care for one of these kids, heck some premies now cost 1 mil just to bring home from the hospital,that's not counting a single penny for early intervention,ongoing special medical care, speech,physical,occupational therapy, specialized daycare etc.
If disabled children are so "special" if they're "gifts from God" then why must their parents walk the streets with a begging bowl to get help for them ?
Note that I don't necessarily agree that you shouldn't be extended any help by the government, but the above argument has substantial merit (I disagree that society has no role to play in your decision, but that's another debate).
Unfortunately, teaching birth control is exactly what abortion providers do. The students are taught that the use of birth control products mitigates the personal responsibility inherent in the act. Then, when the product fails, the student is once again beholden to the same industry to relieve them of their problem. It's not a coincidence that Planned Parenthood is both the #1 abortion and #1 condom provider worldwide. Young people need to be taught that they should not partake in an action until they are prepared to accept full responsibility for possible outcomes of that action.Originally posted by: tss4
I believe personal responsibility is a great idea. And to encourage it we should be teaching birth control in sex education classes instead of this abstinance only crap. With the age of people getting married going up well into the late 20 can you really imagine a 27 year old virgin? Its a pretty unrealistic idea, but I think Rip is right about teaching people how to be responsible while sexually active. That way they won't need the abortion.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Being humble is not the same thing as being humiliated. Asking for help from an organization is hardly the equivalent of pan handling on the streets. In your case, you chose to carry out the action that led to the conception of the handicapped child. The fact that he's handicapped certainly is not your fault, but it is equally not the fault of society that you conceived at all. You don't want to be penalized for your actions, which you freely chose, yet you would penalize society for something over which they had no control.Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Why should I or any other family be forced to be "humilated" in order to receive some supports for a child born handicapped thru no fault or wrong doing? I know darn few families who can foot a bill that can run into the millions to care for one of these kids, heck some premies now cost 1 mil just to bring home from the hospital,that's not counting a single penny for early intervention,ongoing special medical care, speech,physical,occupational therapy, specialized daycare etc.
If disabled children are so "special" if they're "gifts from God" then why must their parents walk the streets with a begging bowl to get help for them ?
Note that I don't necessarily agree that you shouldn't be extended any help by the government, but the above argument has substantial merit (I disagree that society has no role to play in your decision, but that's another debate).
Unfortunately, teaching birth control is exactly what abortion providers do. The students are taught that the use of birth control products mitigates the personal responsibility inherent in the act. Then, when the product fails, the student is once again beholden to the same industry to relieve them of their problem. It's not a coincidence that Planned Parenthood is both the #1 abortion and #1 condom provider worldwide. Young people need to be taught that they should not partake in an action until they are prepared to accept full responsibility for possible outcomes of that action.Originally posted by: tss4
I believe personal responsibility is a great idea. And to encourage it we should be teaching birth control in sex education classes instead of this abstinance only crap. With the age of people getting married going up well into the late 20 can you really imagine a 27 year old virgin? Its a pretty unrealistic idea, but I think Rip is right about teaching people how to be responsible while sexually active. That way they won't need the abortion.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So you're saying the abortion of such children is desirable or even necessary? Is your son's life worth living, in your opinion?Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Private programs are not going to provide the type of ongoing assistance he's likely to need as an adult. New government programs don't need to be created, the existing ones simply need adequate funding to do fufill their mandates.
Knowing at age 22 what sorts of help the disabled young adult will receive on an ongoing basis makes it easier for the family to plan/structure their own contribution to the mix.
There are many advantages to supervised living/group home placement for kids like my son at age 22, it often helps them become far more independent in their daily living skills and able to do more.It also gives the casemanagement time and the family a real idea as to how far the young adult will go in terms of his ability to live on his own before the parents die... that's important info in terms of the family's estate planning.
Had my son received more supports early on, he might well need less in terms of services and caregiving down the road.If we as a society don't pay for the developmentally disabled as children will can be assured we will pay far more for them as adults because their functioning level will be lower.
We as a society are increasingly unwilling to provide supports to our nation's disabled children now, I cannot fathom what would happen if Roe is overturned and we are faced with the prospect of thounds more being born every year, to say nothing of our foster care system which is already in crisis,unable to meet the needs of abused/neglected children
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
There are tens of thousands of unplacable children laquishing in foster homes now.Most prospective adoptive couples don't want older kids, babies born defective or addicted to drugs, even now with the shortage of infants available for adoption. What makes you think this situation will ease if Roe is overturned ? What do you propose we do with the bumper crop of newly born unadoptables that will be born? and there will be scads of them as adoptive couples want healthy white infants,not damaged,drug addicted babies.
We don't want to pay for these kids now, what will we do if there are 100x more of them?
People can have as much sex as they like, but only if they are willing to accept all possible outcomes of their actions.Originally posted by: tss4
This arguement is somewhat reasaonable for the 16 year old child, but what about the 27 year old that hasn't married yet. How about the person that never planned on having children ever. Are they to never have sex in their lives?
Having worked with retarded children and seen their families broken by the hardships imposed, I'm well aware of the difficulties that arise just from their existence. However, I cannot say that they would be better off dead. It's hardly an act of mercy to kill someone before he can ever live at all. I know many handicapped people that lead very fulfilling lives. Frankly, I'm appalled that you would suggest we're better off allowing people to kill someone because they may be handicapped upon birth simply because their lives will be difficult.Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Is his life worth living ? Good question, I wouldn't be happy if I were him, I'm willing to bet that he'll be even less happy once I'm dead and gone and there's no one with any sort of vested interest in looking out for his welfare.
There are tens of thousands of unplacable children laquishing in foster homes now.Most prospective adoptive couples don't want older kids, babies born defective or addicted to drugs, even now with the shortage of infants available for adoption. What makes you think this situation will ease if Roe is overturned ? What do you propose we do with the bumper crop of newly born unadoptables that will be born? and there will be scads of them as adoptive couples want healthy white infants,not damaged,drug addicted babies.
We don't want to pay for these kids now, what will we do if there are 100x more of them?
Well luckily for Mathew he has a Mother that was emotionally equiped to deal with his handicap. Unfortunately not all Handicapped Children are as lucky. Many of them end up being wherehoused in institutes. I find the latter more appalling!Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Frankly, I'm appalled that you would suggest we're better off allowing people to kill someone because they may be handicapped upon birth simply because their lives will be difficult.