posted on October 13, 2005 11:25:54 AM
KD - I thought I'd made myself perfectly clear. You do have the right to your opinion....we all do. And I'd bet that many would agree with your statements.
But when you said [paraphrasing here] they 'ought to be smacked upside their heads'.....for the life views they hold....you certainly wouldn't feel that way about say gays having the right to live the lifestyles they do. This is no different, imo. People telling others what they should and shouldn't do.
And you didn't answer how you'd feel if we forced you to adopt against your will? Or is it that it's okay for you to hold them to that standard while you wouldn't want to be held to the same standard by others?
And it's my opinion that while many Christians choose not to adopt children....they, in one way or another donate/work/volunteer towards helping those same needy children.....I'd bet more than any liberal group does. And I'd also bet that those children who are adopted are going into more 'faith based' homes than into liberal ones. So I think you're choosing to ignore that faith based religions DO give to these children who are in desperate need of loving homes.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 13, 2005 11:36:32 AM
Fugger: I understand that you object to my writing about topics that come up. I AM a writer; please try to forgive me for that "failing." I try to put my thoughts into something coherent; it's a lifelong habit to write as well as I can, and I think I'll just keep doing that. You can write however you like--insults and all.
posted on October 13, 2005 11:47:34 AM
Linda, I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything against their will. I'm not sure where you get that from. I'm not advocating forcing couples into limiting the children they have either. I'm simply questioning why a religious couple would opt for having so many children when there are other babies out there that need to be taken care of more than the un-conceived ones. To me, it's narcissistic. I feel the same way about over-eaters. I want to hold up a picture of a group of starving Haitian babies with AIDS and ask them if they are as clued out as they appear. And it's ok with me if nobody in the whole world agrees with me. That's just how I feel.
posted on October 13, 2005 11:53:13 AM
Sure you are, KD. You're pointing out that in your opinion they SHOULD adopt rather than have more of their own. That it's selfish to have more. I'm pointing out that if they don't wish to adopt...no one should expect them too.
It's all about a double standard you're supporting. Especially since you aren't living the way you are expecting them to live....adopting.
And while you can feel the same way about overweight people too.....that's not something YOU have any control over. I believe you have a problem letting/accepting that individuals have different lifestyle that you don't approve of....or your wouldn't be so critical of them and what they choose to do with their own lives.
Live and let live....applies to all...not just those who do what YOU, KD, approve of.
That's living in some sort of fantasy world.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 13, 2005 12:04 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2005 11:57:09 AM
Your view, linda that all should have the right to make the decision to have as many children as they want is irresponsible -- especially when you fail to offer poor people who cannot afford more children means to prevent or end unwanted or unaffordable pregnancies.
And when all these children that you so valiantly support before birth are born, you then begin to yell about who's responsibility they are -- the parent's or the government?
posted on October 13, 2005 12:07:33 PM
Oh helen....how good you are a twisting everything up.
We're discussing THIS family....and they ARE able to support themselves. There's no reason for anyone to want to take away their right to live as they please.
And yes, you're are correct I do very much support the idea that people take responsibility for their own offspring. There's nothing wrong with wanting them to either not get the female pregnant or if she does become pregnant...that they accept and take that responsibility seriously.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 13, 2005 12:18:51 PM
That is certainly a weak response to my observation. Nothing in my statement is twisted or untrue. You have stated as much over and over throughout the years that you have posted here. If you want, I can post your words. As
I said,
Your view, linda that all should have the right to make the decision to have as many children as they want is irresponsible -- especially when you fail to offer poor people who cannot afford more children means to prevent or end unwanted or unaffordable pregnancies.
And when all these children that you so valiantly support before birth are born, you then begin to yell about who's responsibility they are -- the parent's or the government?
posted on October 13, 2005 12:26:14 PM
No helen....again you're only seeing black and white....when there IS gray in between.
I do NOT feel it's the government's place to support anyone...including all these unwanted children. But they do...and I have accepted that will most likely never change.
BUT...I don't believe I have the right to tell others they shouldn't be having as many children as they want to have. That, imo, is THEIR choice.
That doesn't automatically mean I believe if they do have more children than they can support that our government should then become responsible for them. Nope...their parents should...their families should....other's who WISH to adopt could.
We are the government...it's our tax dollars that are being abused by those who continue to have children when they can't afford to care for them. It's their responsibility to do so....not the taxpayers.
Can you comprehend that difference? Since you are a strong socialist....I know you support the 'cradle to grave' government care. I don't.
If all citizens relied on the government, rather than practicing sexual self-control....we'd have a huge mess. And I don't think I should be forced to care for children or adults that refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves....NO!!!
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on October 13, 2005 12:48:07 PM
The way I see it is this:
If a couple wants to have lots of kids and can afford to support them, that's their business.
This whole argument started when Roadsmith mentioned that Mormon women were coming to a clinic and asking for birth control that they could hide from their husbands & church because they were being forced to be breeding machines. That got ignored in the ensuing argument.
Adoption would be a great thing for folks to do, but some people aren't interested or won't tolerate raising a child not their own.
The only time I have a quibble is when people knowingly create children they know will have devastating problems. One case that comes immediately to mind was a family covered a few years ago on a TV news show that kept having children even though they knew that they were passing down a genetic problem that causes mental retardation in male children. They had about 7 kids, all boys, and all were severely retarded. They claimed that it was God's will for them to keep having kids...
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on October 13, 2005 12:59:11 PM
And I don't want to EVER se our government step in and that that right away from them. It's their choice and since it's quite obvious that different people/couples feel differently about defected babies....it should remain their choice. No government agency should step in that decision making process nor should laws be passed to regulate it. There are thousands and thousands, maybe millions of American's who WILL accept less than perfect babies/children....and love them to death....protect them with their lives.....as it should be imo.
And then there are couples/individuals who are choosing to abort their babies for no other reason than it's a 'girl' fetus...or it has a cleft lip...which is easy to repair now-a-days.
I will NEVER understand why the liberals want so much personal things regulated....or want to see them changed....because they don't agree. Not agreeing is fine/okay/allowed...but it doesn't appear to me the liberals use the same standards when it comes to people of faith and what they choose to do in and with their OWN lives.
posted on October 13, 2005 01:16:59 PM
Linda, there are defects...and there are defects. Why would someone bring into the world (& in some cases do it over & over) a child they know in advance has no hope for any sort a good life? We're not talking cleft palates here, or other fixable things. And when these loving parents get too old or die, who takes care of the kids?
Every weekday a local shelter brings several people to the library. I don't know why, except maybe to give the attendants a change. Their charges are all severely retarded, most with physical problems as well. Try to interact with them and you soon discover that turnips have more on the ball. While a few of them are in their twenties, most are far, far older and I doubt there are living parents still on the scene.
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
posted on October 13, 2005 01:21:05 PMespecially when you fail to offer poor people who cannot afford more children means to prevent or end unwanted or unaffordable pregnancies.
Helen there is a sure fire method of preventing unwanted pregnancy's. Its called abstinence. Failing that, condoms are a cheap alternative.
I gave my liberal neighbors son a book for his birthday. He went crazy trying to find where to put the batteries.
posted on October 13, 2005 01:30:09 PM
bunni - I am not disagreeing that I too would not continue to bring defective [because of genetics] into this world. That's not what I'm saying nor what I'm disagreeing with.
I'm saying there are those who do want, cherish and love these 'special' children....and I don't and won't ever believe the government nor anyone other than their parents have the right to make that decision for them.
As far as their 'care' goes. Most programs that have been established that we taxpayers do pay for....have been put in place and are used by most parents of defective children. The liberals are the ones who created these government paid for benefits. When I was a young girl growing up the parents just kept their 'defective' children at home....and cared for them the best they were able to. It was just a fact of life....a 'trick' Nature pulled on some.
But the decision belongs in the hands of those about to give birth...or who WANT to give birth to these 'special' children.
This isn't China yet....but I believe if some get their way....things will slowly be changed here until the 'mass' of voters will be making these decisions for individuals....and that wasn't the way our Constitution was set up for things to happen.
posted on October 13, 2005 05:06:22 PM
kraft, if everybody who was born during the great depression of 1929-1939 was aborted because their parents 'couldnt afford it', and not too many could at that point, nobody would be here today.
Having a child is not self-indulgent. It is the biggest responsiblity and series of self-sacrifices a person ever makes. How you twist that to validate your own decisions, is beyond me!
Linda: I will NEVER understand why the liberals want so much personal things regulated...
I wholeheartedly agree. That is one reason I am for keeping roe vs. wade in place.
posted on October 13, 2005 06:11:36 PM
dbl - I would prefer there are no abortion....but I understand and accept that roe vs wade will most likely never be reversed. But as a compromise to reversing it...I do feel very strongly that limits need to be established....changes made to some of what is
happening in America.
Most laws/rules have limits of some sort....this should too, imho.
posted on October 13, 2005 06:28:33 PM
I prefer it doesnt happen either too, Linda. They've made birth control so much more effective and carefree to use, hopefully it will become an exception in the future {getting pregnant when one doesnt want to be, rather than a rule.] But I dont know if that will help with teenagers who are just too stupid or naive.
And yes, I agree about with some limitations on late-term abortions and other things.
posted on October 13, 2005 06:29:47 PMHaving a child is not self-indulgent. It is the biggest responsiblity and series of self-sacrifices a person ever makes
And I say a huge AMEN to that
I think what you said there is what I tried saying about having my 2 kids.
But then there are the very few who adopt for appearances. I can think of a couple celebrities (NOT ALL) and former celebrities, Joan Crawford comes to mind.
posted on October 13, 2005 07:11:47 PMFugger: I understand that you object to my writing about topics that come up. I AM a writer; please try to forgive me for that "failing." I try to put my thoughts into something coherent; it's a lifelong habit to write as well as I can, and I think I'll just keep doing that. You can write however you like--insults and all...
Roadkill: I dont object to your writing on topics that come up at all. I YAM a writer too, and by definition, so is anybody who 'writes' to this board. (Many do on a daily basis in case you havent noticed?) The only difference is people write on this section of the board what they feel; good, bad or ugly.
The fact that I post more here is probably because I've always preferred a standard of genuineness to that of strict 'coherency'.
But you are correct - I will keep writing how I prefer to, and so should you or anybody who chooses to 'write' here. However, it's not going to stop anybody else from making comments on anything written here, though.
Oh, and by the way, I have never insulted you. I wished you well on your surgery. But I did cut through the crap one time when you felt the need to make a suggestion to Linda. I simply pointed out people who do that usually just want to tell one off and cloak it some superiority-type suggestion to you niceties. You, however, being the perfect fine upstanding citizen and thoroughly coherent writer that you are, chose to malign my user name for your own insultive purposes,.. but we wont mention any of that, now will we?
posted on October 13, 2005 07:43:03 PM
You shut up, rags-a-lot.
..dont YOU ever tire of picking the specs out of somebody else's eye when youve got a huge surfboard in your own??
.
And maybe if you stopped hanging on to every word I say, you could manage to get your driveway cleaned.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Oct 13, 2005 07:57 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2005 07:53:31 PM
I would like to know if this fine Christian family is the kind of family the CON-servative right wing slams.
You have all heard the right say they keep popping out kids to get more welfare. I wonder how much Health insurance costs this family. If they don't have it or can't afford it who pays? I guess God and us liberials will provide.
posted on October 13, 2005 08:27:19 PM
Wrong defogger, its right wing people like you that bite your own azz's all the time with your own words. Its people like you that say words like this "she keeps popping out kids to get more welfare".
Its you phony right wing azz biters that make issues out of how many kids a family or woman should have. Its people like you that make kids into a right wing issue not me.
Like I said before its God and us Liberals that will help big families.
BTW you must have watched G.W. make a fool of himself today in his staged and rehearsed photo opp. YES!!!
posted on October 13, 2005 08:54:12 PM
But Double, we're not in the depression era anymore. These days you have to have a university education to get a decent job. Will this family be able to afford to send 16+ children to university/college? These days you have to have medical coverage. Do they? These days you have the option of taking birth control measures if you can't afford more children. Can this young couple really afford them? As we see by the number of poor and starving children in our own countries, God DOESN'T take care of them. Only this year, the U.S. was all in a huff because so many Canadians wanted to adopt children of race because nobody in the U.S. seems to want them, yet the U.S. is like 70% Christian, or something like that. This doesn't make sense to me.
posted on October 13, 2005 09:05:45 PM
kraft, they could all get scholarships, or join the military, or take out school loans and work in starbucks, as anybody else who wanted to go to university and their parents did, and do not, could not, foot the bill. There's millions of people who do it, yanno...
No, its not the great depression. My point to you was that was way worse! But people managed and they had their families as a support unit. God, didnt you ever read or watch the movie grapes of wrath? I know you dont get it, kraft, but I really think as a single child, you deep down envy that kind of thing and have to work up all this fault about it to justify you dont have it. C'mon this is Madam fugger, you can tell me...she knows you better than you do!
peepa, youre such an idiot. go smoke your horse pipe or something. You have no idea what freedom means in this country.
posted on October 13, 2005 11:29:40 PMI will NEVER understand why the liberals want so much personal things regulated....or want to see them changed....because they don't agree. -- LindaK, October 13, 2005 12:59:11 PM
but I understand and accept that roe vs wade will most likely never be reversed. But as a compromise to reversing it...I do feel very strongly that limits need to be established....changes made to some of what is happening in America. -- LindaK, October 13, 2005 06:11:36 PM
Which is it, Linda? You can't have it both ways. Either you're a liberal, , or conservatives try to regulate personal things just as much at liberals do...
edited to fix UBB
____________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- George W. Bush
[ edited by bunnicula on Oct 13, 2005 11:36 PM ]
posted on October 14, 2005 06:23:37 AM
defogger, your right I don't understand the form of freedom this CON-servative government is bring America. Freedoms like,
1- Fifty million Americans without health insurance.
2- freedom like 5 million more people in poverty under your form of government.
3- freedom like tax cuts to the rich and industry that allow only the rich and industry to make more money. While the other 99% Americans are working more hours and making less pay,benefits with less good jobs to be had.
4- freedom like open borders that allow cheap labor to overrun America.
5- freedom laws that allow American companies to set up offshore head quarterer's to avoid paying American taxes.
6- freedom of this government starting wars based on lies that kill 2000 Americans and wound over 10,000 more.
7- freedom that is trying to force one form of religion on everybody.
8- freedom laws that give America the biggest trade imbalance we ever had.
9- freedom laws that gave America the biggest National Debt America ever had.
Again defogger your right I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEOCON CON-SERVATIVE FROM OF FREEDOM.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Oct 14, 2005 06:25 AM ]
posted on October 14, 2005 06:59:44 AM
Bunni that was just mean. Pointing out that kind of obvious contridiction. Next thing you are going to be asking is why republicans think that government should have minimal interference and offer minimal support in our lives but should not allow us the right to choose to die when and how we wish.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
