# ? for pro-life mdc'ers...



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Hi. Before I ask my question, I would like to politely request that we not turn this into a debate thread.
I am trying to move past debating the abortion issue.. even though I am ardently pro-choice. But I feel that shouting at each-other from opposite sides of the fence has become totally unproductive, and I am wondering if there is something better to do.

So, as a start, and to show my respect.. I will call you what you call yourselves.. "pro-life" instead of something more abrasive. And I will ask you my question..

Can we find common ground?
I think we can agree that we'd like to see fewer unwanted pregnancies.. we want all babies to be born into loving families..
What else can we agree on? What can we work toward together?

Sex Education?
Empowering women to held their bodies and sexuality sacred?
Teaching young men to respect women?

Contraception? (Ugh don't want to start an abstinence debate either...)

I am just wondering if there is a way to put away the abortion debate for a moment, to find other ways to work together?
Is it possible?

I am trying to be positive here, asking sincerely.. so lets try to keep this respectful, please.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

Dear Asherah,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

On one of the points you mentioned, that of teaching young people better ways of handling gender and sex, I would hope some common ground could be found. It is so sad to see girls whose boyfriends are threatening them with physical harm or abandonment if they don't get an abortion. It is depressing to see women who have been engaging in flat-out dangerous sexual behavior and just keep hoping they don't get HIV. But I am not optimistic about large-scale "educational" initiatives...these things, like most other important life lessons and skills, have to be passed from a caring, involved individual adult to the special young people in his/her life. Perhaps the best straregy would be to offer interested ADULTS courses or literature on how to transmit these values to their own children, nieces and nephews, etc.

But you know, what we are all working towards at MDC--the gentle and humane treatment of children, the acknowledgement of parenting as worthy and important work, the achievement of a child-friendly society---these are all things that might change people's attitudes about parenting and children in general and, I hope, make more women excited about mothering the children they might not have planned for.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I'm not exactly pro-life, but neither am I ardently pro-choice. I'd like to see _shame_ divorced from _sex_. Right now we have a ridiculous double standard: unwed or teenage mothers are villified, and yet abortion is seen as morally wrong as well. Let's stop heaping shame upon unwed mothers. Instead, we need non-judgemental support for unwed mothers and unwed pregnant women including generous social programs to provide financial aid, education, child care, health care and parenting support for needy mothers.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I wish we (we meaning the whole country) could just put the abortion issue away for a while.. just sort of declare a moratorium on it.. and come together to work on these other issues instead.


----------



## oatmeal (Nov 15, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by asherah_
[B

Can we find common ground?

What else can we agree on? What can we work toward together?

Sex Education?
Empowering women to held their bodies and sexuality sacred?

Teaching young men to respect women?

Contraception? (Ugh don't want to start an abstinence debate either...)

[/B]
I'm totally confused which one is your "question" there are quite a few in there? I am right to life and the only thing I see in here which seems related to that issue to me is contraception.

Yes, people should use contraception would be my answer?

Sorry, I just don't get the point of your thread.

Thanks.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Well I get the point of your thread and I think you have some very good points that I very much agree with.









We can change the world even if it is only one child, one family, at a time.

We can start by teaching our sons to respect women, and our daughters to respect themselves. This, even more that teaching about abstinence and contraception, is the best way to prevent sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies.

Empowering women to hold their bodies and sexuality sacred, is probably a better way to encourage abstinence. A young woman that considers her body and sexuality sacred is not likely to become pregnant before she is ready to have a child. Likewise for a young man.

Quote:

Let's stop heaping shame upon unwed mothers. Instead, we need non-judgemental support for unwed mothers and unwed pregnant women
ITA! As a society we need to be sensitive and responsitive to the needs of young mothers and young families. Because so many woman are choosing to delay having children until they are in their 30's, we have become, as a society, even more critical of young mothers.


----------



## oatmeal (Nov 15, 2002)

Hi Barbara

Not to go too far off topic, but I had a baby out of wedlock, unplanned, whose father turned into a jiggling mass of jelly and ran for the hills leaving us a lone with no family to help us.

I was 35 when I had her, and have been treated no differently than a crack mama on welfare or a teen-mother by strangers and friends alike.

I think the goal should be to reduce the stigma for all unmarried mothers who have the courage to forego abortion and do it alone. The current statistic in the this country is that 66% of all births today are to single mothers. Those demographics sweep across the board of age, social status, drug status, whatever.

It has been an unbelievable eye- opener to be in this group.
The poor treatment and lack of support single mothers receive is outlandish in this day and age. Also I think the fact that many married moms are forced back to work when they somtimes don't want to leave their babes is another sign of our society under valuing parenthood.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

oatmeal, thank you for sharing your story. I completely agree, it is a shame the way single mothers are treated. Even though there is often lip service about respecting single mothers, the reality is a gross lack of respect and support!

I'm not sure what the answer is, or how to go about making a change in society's attitudes toward single moms. I think that centers that help with physical needs and education are a good start, but I fear that too often there is a condesending attitude toward the woman they help.









Some of the educational tactics that are used in highschools do nothing but stigmitize young mothers. I guess the idea is to scare young girls so that they won't get pregnant, but the backlash of this type of "education" is that single mothers are type-caste into a derogitory symbol. This method of education also puts motherhood in general into a bad light, and I fear that these woman will go into motherhood with negative ideas about babies.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Well if you don't get the point of my thread, why post in it?

I am trying to get people on opposite sides of the abortion issue to reach out to each other instead of screaming at each other.
I am trying to see if there are things we can agree on and work toward together instead of focusing on what divides us.
I am trying to see if we can figure out a way to make abortions unneccessary instead of fighting about them.

Sorry if you don't understand the point of this.
But I'd like it if those of us who do understand it can continue to speak to each other.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

And, by the way, I agree that more respect for SAHMS, and opposition to the demonization of single mothers are important areas.

See.. common ground. That is what I am getting at. I am pro-choice, you are pro-life.. but we could both work toward these goals.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

I think the one commonality between those opposed to abortion and those opposed to the loss of women's rights, is that both want less unwanted children to be brought into the world.

I don't think the answer is just in teaching contraceeption, and not in teaching that sex is sacred(not everyone believes it is), but that our bodies are worth taking care of and protecting.

I think putting an emphasis on things like preventing STDs, AIDS, etc would be a great place to start. Discouraging sex because of pregnancy won't work. ome young girls have sex too get pregnant.

So, if we can convey to young men and woman, the worth of their selves, then I think we will be on the start to ending unwanted pregnancies/children.

Oh, and to get the already born children homes, no matter what their physical limitaions, or color. To do this we have to teach prospective parents about unconditional love.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

As a society we need to stop with the lip service about "Mothering being the most important job" etc and take some action that shows we actually believe it. Single moms have it really rough. Even moms with partners are still carrying far more of the parenting burden and household burden than their mates... and yet our society still expects them to "put down the bon-bons and bring home a paycheck". It's nuts. If we could make it more possible to raise a child well, actively work against the negative attitudes we might reach a real common goal. A world in which far fewer women would seek abortions strictly out of fear and desperation.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*As a society we need to stop with the lip service about "Mothering being the most important job" etc and take some action that shows we actually believe it. Single moms have it really rough. Even moms with partners are still carrying far more of the parenting burden and household burden than their mates... and yet our society still expects them to "put down the bon-bons and bring home a paycheck". It's nuts. If we could make it more possible to raise a child well, actively work against the negative attitudes we might reach a real common goal. A world in which far fewer women would seek abortions strictly out of fear and desperation.*
Excellant Idea!!

MNS


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

Quote:

As a society we need to stop with the lip service about "Mothering being the most important job" etc and take some action that shows we actually believe it.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I'm so sick of hearing "Mothers have the most important job..." blah blah blah when it's clear that mothers--regardless of marital or societal status--are generally crapped on by everybody.

Not to say that single mothers don't have it worse, or to undermine the struggles unique to single mothers, but mothers in general get no _real_respect.


----------



## PurplePixiePooh (Aug 5, 2003)

Quote:

Let's stop heaping shame upon unwed mothers. Instead, we need non-judgemental support for unwed mothers and unwed pregnant women
ITA!!! I am about as RTL as a person can be and I am loving the idea and theme in this thread. Alot more could be accomplished if we worked together on issues that surround abortion.

I was pregnant with my first child and was unwed, although living with the father. I was still embarassed many, many times. I would see people look at my belly, my face and then my hands to see if I was wearing a ring. I used to hide my hands alot just to keep people from judging me. FTR we did marry and now have a son too. I think because as was stated earlier this country seems to look at young pregnant women as a "problem" I was looked at even more closely than if I was perhaps ten years older. I was pg with my first at 23 - hardly a child. I was pg with ds at 26 and still people did the same thing!!!!!!

Now to address the original post. While not all people view sex as a sacred act, I believe that most people can identify the human body as special and worhty of respect. Most people view the personhood of an individual as very important and I think that these are areas taht are highly neglected in our society today.

The media at large teaches women to dress and act sexy at such young ages, frighteningly young IMO. Boys are taught that to be "cool" or wahtever the term of the day is they need to "get some" and girls are buying into that same mentality as well. Girls parade around dressed in as little as possible to entice boys to look. Boys look, ask out and eventually expect something from her.

Now before someone flames me for talking about dress here I have a valid point.

If a relationship is based on physical attraction adn trpohy value alone, if she looks easy or willing as a base, then there is no real foundation of the relationship anyway. He has not learned of her personhood, her mind, heart, dreams. Only her body is paid attention to. Many girls are just the same when it comes to boys.
Covering up will not solve this. This requires quite a shift that needs to come from home and at least a little in schools. KWIM?

When asked don't I think that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body and choose if she wants to have children, I answer with this: Yes. She can decide if she wishes to have sex and if so to choose which form of contraception is best and will be most effective for her. Threrfor I believe in contraception education and education about absitnence as well. NO WOMAN OR MAN SHOULD EVER FEEL THEY "HAVE" TO SLEEP WITH ANYONE. This should be the focus of absitnance education.
Too many times it is either expected of them or they feel pushed into it. People need to learn how to respect themselves and their bodies first, then it will naturally carry over to to other areas of life. People need to be taught that each individual person is worthy of respect and is valuable regardless of social or economic standing. That getting to know someone is important and that you can certainly enjoy being with someone without having sex with them.

Sex is literally bombarding our children at infancy. Think about waht children see on a daily basis. Go to the grocery, sexually provocative magazine covers, just channel surf for almost any kind of sexual activity imaginable on basic cable at all hours of the day, music, MTV, magazines, other kids, clothing available. Don't get me started on the clothing rant. I will just this: I would not dress my three year old in daisy dukes and a belly shirt. What does that teach her??? What does that teach my son????

we can closely monitor what our children see when watching tv and on the web, we can ask and ask and ask at the stores to put blinders on the covers of sexually charged mag covers and we can most importantly teach our children to hold themselves and their sexuality in esteem.

Esteem in youth, contraception in adults. together this will work. But still women and men will choose to not use it, regardles of what STD's they may get, the babies they may abort or the regrets they may one day have.

I am Christian, I will teach my children abstinance. Certainly. I will also teach contraception. It is part of becoming an adult to learn about fertility and how the body works, we now have many ways to take charge of that fertility and I will begin that subject when my dd becomes a fertile woman.

i am not naieve either. Sex feels good, it is a strong drive, it can be overwhelming in the heat of the moment. While I hope and pray that my dd and ds will give their future spouses the gift of their virginity, I am not denying that may not happen.

Respect for ones personhood and contraception can go a long, long way.

I am not sure how people on the other side of the fence feel about this, but I also think that caring for a child as a young mother is made too difficult. Schools ALL schools, places of business and such should be required to offer FREE and GOOD, SAFE daycare for those children so the mom can stay in school and then transition to a job untill she gets on her feet and can pay for quality daycare.

If the mother does not want to raise the child adoption should be focused on as well as just saying to "get rid of it". Adoption needs to made much less expensive. All good homes cannot afford the steep fees for adoption. We can provide nicely for our children but we could have never even afforded 5000.00 to adopt.
Adoption should not be something that only more wealthy people can afford, but something looked at as a real service for and to the mothers and children who need loving, safe good homes.
Homelife should be emphasised more than anything and fees if needed should be rock bottom or waived just to get these children out of the "system" and into families where they will be loved and cherished. Cut the red tape and the bull. Do something real about this. Aborting is not the answer to this situation, less greed is. I do not know all the scrutiny that a family goes through to adopt, but I think much of it may be frivolous, like income requirements, like as if a poor family are less qualified to care for a child than one that makes more money. As long as food can shelter and clothing can be met, nough said!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I also wish the need for abortion would be reduced. I think it's very sad. Here are some suggestions:

Create teenage pregnancy prevention plans that focus on boys, not girls. Girls do not get themselves pregnant - very often, they have a boy's help! Girls often become pregnant against their will - rape, incest, etc. Also, high school (and younger) age girls who become pregnant often got that way with a man who was college age or older. Men should be educated about rape, statutory rape, etc.

Bring back the true welfare state. None of this welfare-to-work! Pay mothers to stay home and raise their children. Pay them thousands of dollars! If they want to go to college (or get a job) pay them enough so their kids can go to the highest-quality school or daycare available.

Realize that married mothers don't have it so easy either. My situation: I am married, but as far as I'm concerned I may as well be single because dh is a full-time student (as am I). My university provides support to single parents in the form of special scholarships and loans, educational opportunities that other students don't have, etc. I think that's good, but I think these programs should include all parents.

Provide contraception. Teach abstinence, but don't tell kids it's the only option, or even the best option. Make contraception available to all kids of all ages, without parental knowledge.

Provide pregnant teens (well, all women, really) with excellent prenatal care of their choice. Encourage them to have the birth experience they want. Let them know about home birth. Provide breastfeeding education and support.

Make adoption a more realistic option for everyone. Don't exclude potential adoptive parents just because they are poor, homosexual, or single. Screen foster parents (more than once!) to make sure they are truly fit to be parents. Make sure that the home a disabled, drug-addicted black child is placed in is of the same quality as the home that got the perfectly healthy white child. (And yes, every fervently pro-life person should have at least one adopted child!)

Finally, let pregnant teens and single mothers know that they have done nothing wrong - they have every right to bear children, and that in doing so they greatly benefit the world around them.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Girls do not get themselves pregnant - very often, they have a boy's help!*
Can you link to some studies that support this claim?


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

HA!

See, now this is great stuff.
This is what I was hoping for.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I agree with much of what has been suggested, esp. that kids need to be taught respect for themselves.

I think there needs to be a whole societal change though in the ideas of sex. I will teach my children about how wonderful sex is, I will tell them openly how great it feels, and be very open about sexual issues, but I do not think it is just a religious thing to promote abstinence.

There are very serious issues with rape and incest, in which the girl has no choice, and other than raising our boys right, and being extra cautious who our kids are with, I just don't have the answers of how to end those things, I just have such little understanding of what makes men do those things.

On the topic though, of abstinence, when it is one's choice. It is very worthwhile, even for non-religious people, to teach that as wonderfully fabulous sex is, and how it's only purpose is not pro-creation, but that conceiving a child is always a chance that a man and woman (boy and girl, etc.) take when having sex, there is no 100% birth control, and so, when people (heterosexual)who are not sterile (or already pregnant







) chose to have sex (even with "protection") they are making a choice that *could* result in the creation of a new life.

I will talk my kids through what they would do if they conceived a child before they were ready. People need to realize that while sex is wonderful it is not just about you and feeling good.

I just think we have spent so much time telling people that if they would just correctly use "birth control" then we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies, and this is so simply not true. I can't count how many people I know who have conceived babies while using birth control.

We need to raise kids who have high self-esteem, as well as high levels of personal responsibility, and the ability to consider the life they may create, we need to expect a lot from our children, and therefore we have a lot of work to do.

As I said, there were lots of great ideas already in this thread, and I agree with a lot of them, but I just think a major portion of the problem is how our society has distanced sex from creating new life.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

I am not trying to start a mean debate, but I am quite skeptical of the idea that stay-at-home-moms should be paid ---HOWEVER I am open to being informed and enlightened....

These are my thoughts: Where is this money going to come from? I know that some moms here at MDC, I think asherah and EFmom included (correct me if I'm wrong), have chosen to continue working for reasons other than financial need. Why should they have to hand over more of _their_ money (if we're talking about taxes) or _their_ time (if we're talking about WOH employees shouldering the burden of company policy) , which represents time spent away from _their_ children, so that I can stay home with my boys without having to baby-sit part-time to make ends meet? Or is it the hard-working dads who are going to have to put in more hours and say goodbye to more of their hard-earned money--leaving them with less energy for their children and more financial stress? If any dads are left, that is---we've already witnessed the lovely effects of at what happens when men are replaced as protectors/providers by Big Daddy Government...

SAHM's make a different kind of material/financial contribution to their households. I really don't think we ought to be paid by outsiders to do it. You get wages/a salary for working for someone else--you get other rewards for putting your effort into your home & family full-time.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

hhmmm.. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone thinks SAHM should get money, per se. Most of the comments have been focused on respect. I think it is not crazy to look at the ways in which money forces women away from their children and see if we can keep them together more. More realistic family leave would be one way. Companies making a far more genuine effort to provide quality, on site day care, flex time jobs and shared jobs for those who want or need them. What about figuring breast milk production into the gross national product like Iceland (I think) does. Front of the line privledges in grocery stores for moms (or anyone... duh!) with two or more kids under 4 or 5 in tow. Hawai'i has a small state run office that helps moms meet up to organize baby hui's (play groups). I had never heard of such a thing before... why not? Why doesn't everyplace have that?

I am reminded of something I read in Molly Ivins book "Shrub". Discussing the woeful situation that Texas schools had fallen into someone said something about how critical it is to educate and care for the children. A politician in the room replied "Oh yeah? Do the little F***ers have PAC?"


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Why should I care about anyone's children besides my own? Because I believe in that silly proverb about it taking a whole village to raise a child. No, I don't know where the money would come from (well, I have ideas, but that would start a whole other thread!) but I think it's the right idea anyway.

I am honored that some of my meager tax contributions each year go to helping poor mothers.

SAHM's (or any parents) are not just helping themselves and their own children. They are helping the rest of society. Just an example - if any of us end up in a nursing home, who do you think is going to give you a bath and bring your dinner? That's right, someone else's kid. I just hope to god that when it's my turn, I get the kid who was raised in a loving home and whose mother was supported in her job as a parent, and not the kid that was left to cry all day in a crib at a state-run daycare center while his mother worked 60 hours a week at Burger King.

Who do you think it is out there, shooting other people's kids, blowing stuff up, ripping everyone off, selling drugs, etc.? Probably not the kid who was listened to. Not the kid who always had a parent to talk to. Most likely, it's the kid who was told he didn't matter because he was just a kid. Or the kid whose mother was told she shouldn't have gotten knocked up.

Early experience matters. Parents matter. Parents are not optional, not luxuries. Children have a right to spend time with their parents in their early years. As a parent I care about every child, not just my own. It's in my best interest to care about everyone, and the best interest of the community as well.

Now, if we could all just care about each other...


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_ "Originally posted by Greaseball --
Girls do not get themselves pregnant - very often, they have a boy's help!"
*Can you link to some studies that support this claim?*
ROTFLMAO :LOL :LOL That's great!


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Good ideas being thrown around here.

Great thread asherah! Thanks for starting it!


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Greaseball~

I completely agree with everything you posted!!!!

It boggles my mind when people complain about their taxes taking care of poor people. I for one am happy to be of some help, especially sincee we can't afford to donate to charities outside of our taxes.

AND, if we don't take care of our young people, and they don't grow up to get jobs and pay their taxes, where do you think social security will come from. It's the generation after us that pays for it.


----------



## daylily (Dec 1, 2001)

I don't think I deserve a paycheck from the gov't for being a SAHM, but I do think that SAHMs should get social security credit during the years we spend out of the workforce caring for our children. According to Anne Crittenden, SAHM-hood is a major predictor of poverty in elderly women.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

deleted (see below)
sorry potty diva for the misunderstanding


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

asherah, sorry for taking your thread off topic. We don't need to get caught up fighting about whether it's our personal responsibility or a government one....it ends up being an unproductive waste of time.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Respectfully Super Pickle,

What in the world are you talking about?

I don't think I mentioned your psot at all, or your opinions.

Please don't bring me into a fight here.


----------



## leavesarebrown (Apr 22, 2003)

I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE this thread!!!!! I have wanted to see a bridge like this built somewhere, anywhere, for a LONG LONG time!!!

I 100% agree about the need to educate EVERYONE better about mutual respect and ownership of ones' own body. Recently someone in my church did a study of our teens and young adults to try to find out what factors contribute to premarital sexual choices. The overwhelming majority of the young women who had sex did so because they didn't want to lose their boyfriend (talk about self esteem issues!!!) while the overwhelming majority of the young men did so because it feels good. Something is definitely wrong w/ this picture, and I don't think it is unique to those of my faith (as also reflected on this thread).

BTW, I would LOVE to get paid for my hard work here at home! Regardless of the fact that I could choose other paid work in addition! Wait, isn't that the whole point of child tax credits?







: Wow, I get paid DIRT!







Oh, no, that's peanuts. I guess that's 'cause they assume I'm an ELEPHANT!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Girls do not get themselves pregnant - very often, they have a boy's help!"
Seriously, I hear it's true! Between 22 and 100% of pregnancies involve male and female genetic stuff.

I was always confused whenever I'd go out with friends (female friends at that!) and my mom would call out "Don't get YOURSELF pregnant!"


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

I don't believe for a moment that you need a man to get pregnant, because sincee I had my first son at 18, myy dad has always said my life would have been good if I hadn't went and got myself pregnant, and my dad doesn't lie!!


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

well.. I would rather see my tax money go to SAHMs than to warplanes.. but that is a whole 'nother thread!

But to tie this back in to the point of the thread... I do think that if we made parents.. particularly single mothers.. more economically secure in the long term.. it would reduce the number of abortions.

And.. if you got yourself pregnant.. you outta be doing the talk show circuit and making a bundle.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I don't think people should receive an automatic check just because they are a SAHM, but I think that all parents should be provided for if they cannot meet their own needs. If people don't like the idea of cash, how about some kind of voucher similar to WIC? But for everything else - sheets, towels, shampoo, rent, heat, water, clothes, etc.

And I also think being a SAHM should count as a job for tax and retirement purposes. My mom is in that situation - because she was a SAHM and a farmer for much of her life, when she retires she won't even get enough money for the most god-awful nursing home. And no, she did not make that choice.

Another thing that could reduce the need for abortion - make it so pregnant women don't have to drop out of school or quit work. Allow them to take classes from home if they are too sick to come to school. Let them have plenty of extra breaks at work. Employers should go out of their way to make the workplace comfortable and enjoyable for pregnant employees instead of telling them they "chose" to be "disabled." You know, you can choose to be pregnant without choosing (or knowing) what it will do to your body.

With my first pregnancy I was so sick I had to drop out of school 3 weeks before finals. With this one, it looks like I'll be able to finish the term. You just never know.

I'd also like to see them invent an artificial womb, or a way to transfer embryos into a surrogate mother.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I'd also like to see them invent an artificial womb, or a way to transfer embryos into a surrogate mother.*








T

Whoa...greaseball...you have just knocked my brain so hard it's seeing stars!!!!!

You know, for all the times I've seen people who are pro-life (and honestly, I count myself in that category, for the most part) get all huffy about how pro-choice folks don't generally put their money towards supporting ALL choices or seem to be fixated on abortion...

...I just realized that the vast majority of pro-life organizations are composed of the same people who are resolutely against high level scientific interventions of this magnitude.

But really, IF we permitted science to find this answer, wouldn't that be the ideal? That way the women who don't want other women to get abortions could bear the children they don't want to be killed--and the women who don't want children at all don't have to be forced to birth them.

I am not sure that will happen anytime soon though...you'd have to do a lot of experimentation to get there, and I think the results would be quite stressful for the wanting-to-be-mamas.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*sincee we can't afford to donate to charities outside of our taxes.*
Ooooh....maybe we could afford to donate to the charities we felt passionate about, if our taxes weren't so high to keep funding govt. institutions that neither provide the best services nor use the money effeciently! But I guess that is another thread altogether...


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

We can't possibly donate to US Charities, Mark's tax dollars are already being used to support Bush's crack habit







ild


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Another thing that would help is if more (all) "fathers" paid child support. This could alleviate single-parent poverty and maybe even reduce the need for welfare payments.

Right now it's hard to go after a male parent-by-means-of-genetics when he doesn't pay. And if he skips a payment, it's not like the state makes it up to the mother in the meantime. That's what they should do - pay the mother anything she doesn't get from, you know, that guy, and then send the bill to him with a lot of interest fees and such tacked on. If he doesn't pay, it could come out of his taxes. He'd learn that it's much simpler to just pay the mother.

I'm sure this will not go over well, but I think child support payments should start while the woman is pregnant, since it is, after all, a child with real needs. He could pay for the extra food and a birth attendant of the woman's choice.

Men who don't pay support are often looked at with sympathy, while women who support their children with govt funds are seen as people who ought to be shot.

It would also help if mothers got half of the father's income. (If there is more than one mother, as is often the case with man-types, divide it among them.) I think that's what is needed to adequately support a child. My father made $15,000 a year and was only ordered to pay $25 a month for two kids. He sent $200 a month, which although not enough was at least a nice gesture. Men, unlike women, seem to have more of a choice in whether to have sexual intercourse or not, and they should suffer for their choices when they harm women.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Another thing that would help is if more (all) "fathers" paid child support. This could alleviate single-parent poverty and maybe even reduce the need for welfare payments.

Right now it's hard to go after a male parent-by-means-of-genetics when he doesn't pay. And if he skips a payment, it's not like the state makes it up to the mother in the meantime. That's what they should do - pay the mother anything she doesn't get from, you know, that guy, and then send the bill to him with a lot of interest fees and such tacked on. If he doesn't pay, it could come out of his taxes. He'd learn that it's much simpler to just pay the mother.

I'm sure this will not go over well, but I think child support payments should start while the woman is pregnant, since it is, after all, a child with real needs. He could pay for the extra food and a birth attendant of the woman's choice.

Men who don't pay support are often looked at with sympathy, while women who support their children with govt funds are seen as people who ought to be shot.

It would also help if mothers got half of the father's income. (If there is more than one mother, as is often the case with man-types, divide it among them.) I think that's what is needed to adequately support a child. My father made $15,000 a year and was only ordered to pay $25 a month for two kids. He sent $200 a month, which although not enough was at least a nice gesture. Men, unlike women, seem to have more of a choice in whether to have sexual intercourse or not, and they should suffer for their choices when they harm women.*
If you look at the statistics, WOMEN that are ordered to pay child support vs. men that are ordered to pay child support, 71% of women DO NOT PAY and you do not see a nationwide DEADBEAT MOMS campaign. There are only about 15% of dads that do not pay ordered support.

The money thing makes the wholesituation complicated. I have seen men ordered to pay more in support than they actually make in a year at the job they currently have. How is a male supposed to survive to pay his support? If you want to male bash, that's fine, just recognize it as such.

The "average" working male cannot make, and does not make, enough money to pay support at the "ordered" amunt and pay his own bills to survive. I can understand people in the position to actually pay a "fair" amount having to, but for lower income people that just is not a reality.

MNS


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

thank you so much for posting such an important question that has led to some great discussion.... I apologize in advance for the long post...

On the topic of how to reduce unwanted pregnancies...

My hope for all children and the focus in parenting my little ones is for them to receive the love and support of family and friends that affirm their worth as individuals... that children will be given the nurturing and guidance to believe in their abilities and to value/respect themselves (self-validation rather than other-validation).

I want my own children and all children to understand through their own early life experiences that there is a time for everything and that childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood is a time for learning, developing/discovering themselves and creating a life for themselves prior to embarking on the life journey with a chosen partner.

I feel strongly that children who are given the nurturing and opportunity to figure out who they are, what they believe about the world and their place in the world, who/what they will become, may be less likely to engage in sexual activity that could result in procreation or disease. I know this may be a controversial idea....

I believe an age-appropriate reading list should be developed and instituted in the public school system as a mandatory requirement for graduation from each level of school (elementary to middle and middle to high school) that focuses in a meaningful way on self-esteem issues.... and mental health professionals should be made available to all students on a routine basis, not just to children who outwardly display symptoms of serious problems. All children deserve to have this support on a preventative basis. Anyone have any contacts at the US Dept. of Education????

On support for mothers caring for young children....

Our beloved country (and I am very patriotic despite how this sounds) needs to get a clue and realize it needs to do more to support children, parents, and families. The government's response might be that we are the only remaining superpower so that means we are the strongest and most powerful nation on earth. Yet the govt. is soooo lacking in the value it places on raising the next generation of Americans.

Working Mother magazine does an annual survey of "family friendy" companies to work for (companies that make it easier to balance the need to work and care for your family)... and in the last edition of the survey it highlighted what other countries do to support new families.... many European countries offer paid time off for new parents (MEANINGFUL time off, as in MONTHS not days or weeks), guaranteed job security for the birthing mother for up to a year of paid time off after a birth, etc... etc... I was ready to pack my bags and move to Europe...

I am a full time working, nursing mother. I have moved heaven and earth to continue to attachment parent my little ones despite the financial need to be employed during my childbearing/raising years. I work for the federal govt and a very male-dominated agency within the govt so I had NO support for balancing the need to work AND take care of my family. So I habitually face an uphill battle when trying to construct my work life in a way that does not violate my commitment to attachment parenting and allows me to meet my children's needs.

As an employer, the federal govt. does not offer paid maternity leave (other than sick/vacation time you may have accrued).

After my son was born in 1999, I quit my job, moved back to the west coast (near my family), and took 2 years off from full time paid employment. It was the best decision I ever made and was fully supported by my partner. I was able to continue nursing until my son was ready to wean at age 2 and I only worked sporadically, part time hours as a post partum doula.

When I went back to work full time again, my son was between 2 1/2 and 3 years and I was pregnant again. This time I was in a job position that allowed me to better advocate for my family's needs and I asked to telecommute at the end of my pregnancy. I was able to continue doing this when I went back to work after my daughter's birth. My daughter is now a 15 month old nursing toddler and I am still working from home except for 2 mornings a week. I am hoping to make this a permanent arrangement and also decrease my work hours at some point.

It has been quite a challenge to buck up against the Old Boy Network and ask to be allowed to creatively problem solve the work-family balance. But it has been so worth it. My children are happy and thriving.

Now, another big hurdle... how to get the corporate world (my husband's employer) to be more supportive of male partners seeking family-friendly flexibility in their work arrangements!! But one mountain at a time I guess....


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

MNS.. can you link to those stats by any chance? Because I suspect that the 71% is still a far lower number than the 15%... and that there are far more children living in poverty because of non-paying dads than non-paying moms. If I am mistaken I would like to know. If I am right then I don't see that it is male bashing to discuss that. I know that you are correct when you say that some men are ordered to pay more than they make and that paying child support is a huge financial burden but I am not convinced that enough people of either gender put paying for their non-custodial children ahead of their own needs.


----------



## eilonwy (Apr 3, 2003)

This is a fascinating thread..

I am very much pro-choice, mostly because I can't afford to adopt unwanted children. If I could solve the problem, I'd probably be pro-life.

Greaseball: Girls do not get pregnant on their own, but it's not always the boy who initiates sex. Teenaged girls frequently initiate sex because they want something small and cute to dress in fancy outfits and to love them unconditionally. You could argue that it's a self-esteem issue; I'd probably even agree with you, but you can't say that young teenaged girls never deliberately get pregnant. It's just not true.

The high school I went to had a (free) day care center (only) for students that was very nice. It was run by the YWCA and had a very long waiting list. Before the day care center, they sent pregnant girls to a separate school once they started to show; someone realized that a lot of girls went to the school only to drop out after the baby was born, and thus the day care program was begun.

I've also seen commercials on TV where a young man promises his girlfriend that he will "respect you as a human being and never pressure you to do anything you're not ready to do, especially when it comes to sex." There are "girl" ones too, but I can't remember what she says.









At the library, I noticed a sign and some pamphlets about National Adoption Month and picked up one of everything. I learned that you don't actually need a lot of money to adopt domestically; in many cases, fees for the home study, court costs, and other fees may be reimbursed, sometimes in their entirety.

The Pennsylvania Fatherhood initiative runs commercials and classes for young men & teenaged boys teaching them about contraception, what rape and statutory rape are, and what it means to be more than a sperm donor. They talk about how important it is for all men to be active in their children's lives, and why they should not only pay child support but be a physical presence and never demean their children's mothers in any way, especially not in front of their children.

I can't say that I've ever really thought of Lancaster Pennsylvania as being a very progressive place, but I suppose that in this regard it really is. The number of abortions, children in the foster care system, and unwed teenaged parents have all been dropping steadily in the area for about 10 years. I guess someone's doing something right.









What would I like to see? Parenting classes offered to younger students and to teens who are not already pregnant or parenting. We had parenting classes at my high school, but you had to be pregnant or parenting (boys took the classes too.) From what I understand, most places don't even have that. I think that if kids knew what they were getting themselves into, they'd be more inclined to listen when people talk about birth control and respecting their bodies.

Sex ed needs to happen earlier in schools. Girls are getting pregnant in 5th and 6th grade, and many of them have no idea how it happened. Myths like "you can't get pregnant the first time" and "if you stand up right away, you can't get pregnant" abound, and they are frequently believed by young girls. In my senior year sex ed class (and this was just my class of 35 kids) there were *four* pregnant or parenting girls, and two boys whose girlfriends were expecting (their) babies. And that's only the ones who sat near enough for me to talk to them or overhear their conversations. This business of closing the barn door after the horse is gone is totally not helpful.

I'd like for WIC to run cooking classes, and to continue to support breastfeeding mothers after 12 months. I'd also like to be able to buy reduced fat peanut butter and soy milk on WIC, but I could start a whole new thread on that! Teenaged girls can give birth to huge, full-term babies, but they need to know how to eat, and why. Telling them to drink milk every day doesn't do much alone; showing them pictures of babies whose mothers ate well and babies whose mothers did not will. Teaching them how to prepare a nutritious meal for themselves and their children would go a long way towards making them feel more competent as parents.

I'd like to emphasize again that I think the most important way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies/children is education, and at a much younger age. A story to illustrate: Last year, my niece was in Kindergarten. One afternoon on the playground, a kindergarten boy and a first grade boy held her arms while another kindergarten boy kicked her repeatedly in the shins. She did not tell her teacher, the principal, or the playground monitor. She did not tell her mother or her grandmother when she got home. She went upstairs and changed into playclothes, and that's when my mother saw her legs. "Oh", she said "some boys kicked me at school" and out came the whole story.

Now, girls don't get pregnant by being kicked in the shins, but my points are thus:

1. Boys are being taught that violence, against girls in particular, is necessary/appropriate.
2. Girls are taught that their pain is unimportant.
3. Girls agree that when boys perpetrate violent acts against them, they should just keep their mouths shut.

Does this have something to do with her mother being 15 when she was born? Not exactly, but her mother's never had great self esteem either. My niece watches her parents fight, berate, and cheat on one another constantly; they refuse to actually let go of their relationship. Even though they're not "together", it's still damaging to hear about your mother's boyfriends or your father's girlfriends. That can't be teaching her anything good about relationships.

For the record, my niece does not have particularly low self-esteem; she is bubbly and outgoing, and has many friends. (Though I'm not sure how long that will continue). It just never occurred to her that it was wrong for little boys to use her this way. I can easily see how these attitudes grow up into "Well, I didn't actually say "no", so he didn't rape me."


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*MNS.. can you link to those stats by any chance? Because I suspect that the 71% is still a far lower number than the 15%... and that there are far more children living in poverty because of non-paying dads than non-paying moms. If I am mistaken I would like to know. If I am right then I don't see that it is male bashing to discuss that. I know that you are correct when you say that some men are ordered to pay more than they make and that paying child support is a huge financial burden but I am not convinced that enough people of either gender put paying for their non-custodial children ahead of their own needs.*
I do not remember where I read those stats but I did a quick search and found some links.

Of xourse the actual number is lower because women usually automatically get custody. The only right most fathers have is that of paying when it comes to divorce and children. For a father to get custody of children usually reuires that a mother be proved "unfit" for some reason or another.

Why should parents of either gender put paying for child support ahead of actual needs? I am not talking luxury vacations, I am talking about not living in your car and having food to eat. When it took both partners working to support one household, supporting two households just is not happening.

Here are some links...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html

http://www.supportingoursons.org/art...m?articleid=53

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/mag/essay...1Deadbeat.html

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Bistr...ats.html#begin

In my opinion, it is male bashing. The fact is the percentage is higher. Just because there aree way more fathers ordered to pay support in the first place is not relevant.

MNS


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Okay... there are a lot of conflicting stats in those links but none of them claims the numbers you did. Mixing and matching to try to make sense I see:

In 1995,
single MOM households 12.2 million
single DAD households 3.2 million

you say

Quote:

71% of women DO NOT PAY and you do not see a nationwide DEADBEAT MOMS campaign. There are only about 15% of dads that do not pay ordered support.

The census, as quoted in fox says

Quote:

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe.
That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.
There is a big difference between the barely more than a million moms described by the census and the 3.2 million mentioned above, from your first link, which also claims to be using Census numbers. *sigh*

So... we are likely looking at, among other things an inequity in who is awarded support payments in the first place. But lets put that aside for a moment and just look at the numbers.
Deadbeat moms: 1.2 - 2.1 million
Deadbeat dads: 1.8 - 3.6 million
(I did the math in my head so it is not great... feel free to fix it if you want... but I am in the ballpark.)
I think the ACTUAL number of kids not being provided for is relevent.

You mention that many non-custodial parents simply can't afford to pay what the court has ordered. True

Quote:

But more moms that don't have the kids simply can't afford to pay child support since they are poorer, said Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. Studies show the average income for non-custodial moms is only $15,000 a year, whereas non-custodial dads average about $40,000 a year.
and that burden also falls more heavily on the women.

Male bashing is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. In any case... we are getting really off topic. If we want to discuss this further we should start a new thread. The topic here is what can we all agree on that is likely to reduce the number of abortions. I can imagine that a woman facing the decision of how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy might give some thought to how much financial assistance she will get to help with the inevitable finacial hardship she will face. Knowing that support from the father would be forthcoming, that the courts, etc would help her... not by handing down a useless ruling but by actually making sure she got the money.... might really affect her decision. I don't expect at that point she is thinking about... 'well, if I have the baby and later just give him or her to the dad... how much will that cost me a year and will I really have to pay it?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

How is a male supposed to survive to pay his support?
I guess the little slut should have thought of that before having a child, right? Isn't that what the moms are told? Why tell the dads any different? And yes, girls often initiate sex, but the boy would say no if he wasn't a complete whore. Or is that just for girls? A boy could also use a condom if he had any self-respect. He could also refuse to have sex with girls who didn't want him to use a condom. But I guess we just don't expect males to take any sexual responsibility at all.

Regarding family friendly companies...often the only positions that are family friendly are the upper level executive ones, not the minimum wage ones. I have seen McDonald's on that list. No McDonald's counter people have the right to pump milk at work. McDonald's does not provide quality daycare, paid maternity leave, extra breaks for pregnant employees, etc. They could, but they won't.

And what about women who are already unemployed when they become pregnant? Not only are they not likely to get hired if they are showing, they will be too late for any benefits. You have to be employed for a certain time to get even an unpaid leave. Family friendly means only a few things, according to Ms Magazine - sick leave (to be used only for a sick employee, not a sick child), vacation time, up to 12 weeks unpaid parental leave, and unpaid maternity leave. Many parents cannot afford to take these leaves.

I think a "dad" (or mom, if noncustodial) should pay exactly half of the child's needs. Isn't that what's fair? Custodial parents pay a lot more than half of the child's needs. Why is that fair? Should they have to give their child to the unfit parent to get a break? Two parents, one child...simple math here says that each parent should pay half. If both parents absolutely cannot support the child, the government should kick in the rest. We're talking about the best interest of the child here.


----------

