Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Pro-Lifer's Can you answer this?

Posted by   + Show Post

lets just say there are about 500,000 abortions a year about half of those are aferican american, disabled, addicted to drugs, etc. children like that rarely get adopted if you don't believe me go look at the kids currently in foster care that are able to be adopted http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children/search

so that is 250000 kids extra a year into the foster care system how do we afford to take care of these children when states can not even take care of the ones they have now. Recently the  Hitting the MARC: Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children revealed that 49 states were falling short of adequate reimbursement rates for foster families at the time of the study — and that states across the nation would need to raise the rates by which they reimburse foster parents by an average of 36 percent to cover the actual costs of supporting a child in foster care. 

So someone explain to me how getting rid of abortion would be fiscaly responsible since most of the pro-lifers are the republicans who are all about fiscal conservitisim.


To fact check me look here http://www.childrensrights.org/policy-projects/foster-care/hitting-the-marc-foster-care-reimbursement-rates/foster-care-rates-by-state/

by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Replies (31-40):
annasmom1234
by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:38 PM

 It might not be "fiscally responsible," but it is morally responsible.

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:40 PM

 Recently?


Quoting LindaClement:

That's hilarious.

My mom had 4 miscarriages on an IUD and my aunt delivered the IUD after my cousin and before the placenta.


 

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM

No. But the failure rate remains:

0.2% in the first year (comparable to the pill) and 0.7% over 5 years --higher than the pill.

That's a significant difference from 0% failure, which is ZERO pregancies in 10,000 women, not 20.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 Recently?


Quoting LindaClement:

That's hilarious.

My mom had 4 miscarriages on an IUD and my aunt delivered the IUD after my cousin and before the placenta.




jwaren
by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:42 PM

If a couple is 100% against another child, then yes Abstinance needs to happen. There is so much information out there about understanding fertility.  There are ways to get your risk really close to zero.  Backup methods, fertility planning, even surgical options are out there.  But sex can create babies. Couples need to consider all the options prior to having sex.  I know that after baby#5, dh and I don't want anymore.  We won't stop having sex because we don't want anymore, we will just take extra precautions to make sure it doesn't happen.  If it does, then that child will be welcomed in our family. We will make adjustments, we will find a way to make it work.  Why? Because that is what I agree to when I make the choice to have sex. 


Quoting Woodbabe:

Well you clearly said no method is 100% and if a couple 100% knows they can't afford more children, then no sex. That seems pretty harsh. Would your husband go without sex for the rest of your marriage?

Quoting jwaren:

Recreational sex is fine, but you have to accept the risk of pregnancy. If an unplanned pregnancy is not a risk you are willing to take, then yes you should abstain.  There are SOOOOO many ways to prevent pregnancy and abortion isn't one of them.


Quoting Woodbabe:


Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

So...a couple married 10 years and done having children shouldn't ever have recreation sex again if they really don't want any more kids?

Yeah for single motherhood!

My man would be GONE.






Paperfishies
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:44 PM
1 mom liked this
Lol, so it's death or nothing.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Actually: no.

I've been sexually active with dh since the birth of our second (and final) child 22 years ago. I have absolutely no intention of becoming celebate because we don't want more children.

And the fact that vascectomies can and do fail has nothing at all to do with that.

Quoting jwaren:

If a couple is 100% against another child, then yes Abstinance needs to happen. There is so much information out there about understanding fertility.  There are ways to get your risk really close to zero.  Backup methods, fertility planning, even surgical options are out there.  But sex can create babies. Couples need to consider all the options prior to having sex.  I know that after baby#5, dh and I don't want anymore.  We won't stop having sex because we don't want anymore, we will just take extra precautions to make sure it doesn't happen.  If it does, then that child will be welcomed in our family. We will make adjustments, we will find a way to make it work.  Why? Because that is what I agree to when I make the choice to have sex. 


Quoting Woodbabe:

Well you clearly said no method is 100% and if a couple 100% knows they can't afford more children, then no sex. That seems pretty harsh. Would your husband go without sex for the rest of your marriage?

Quoting jwaren:

Recreational sex is fine, but you have to accept the risk of pregnancy. If an unplanned pregnancy is not a risk you are willing to take, then yes you should abstain.  There are SOOOOO many ways to prevent pregnancy and abortion isn't one of them.


Quoting Woodbabe:


Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

So...a couple married 10 years and done having children shouldn't ever have recreation sex again if they really don't want any more kids?

Yeah for single motherhood!

My man would be GONE.







NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM
4 moms liked this

Good for you.

Personally, I do not want to raise six children. But that is MY choice. It is also my choice to have a full marraige that includes sex. I will not have another child because I do not choose to do so. How I go about following that choice belongs to ME and DH, not anyone else.

In no way do I believe that EVERYONE should be forced to live like me, to make the same choices as me because it is what I believe is right.

Why do you?

Quoting jwaren:

If a couple is 100% against another child, then yes Abstinance needs to happen. There is so much information out there about understanding fertility.  There are ways to get your risk really close to zero.  Backup methods, fertility planning, even surgical options are out there.  But sex can create babies. Couples need to consider all the options prior to having sex.  I know that after baby#5, dh and I don't want anymore.  We won't stop having sex because we don't want anymore, we will just take extra precautions to make sure it doesn't happen.  If it does, then that child will be welcomed in our family. We will make adjustments, we will find a way to make it work.  Why? Because that is what I agree to when I make the choice to have sex. 


Quoting Woodbabe:

Well you clearly said no method is 100% and if a couple 100% knows they can't afford more children, then no sex. That seems pretty harsh. Would your husband go without sex for the rest of your marriage?

Quoting jwaren:

Recreational sex is fine, but you have to accept the risk of pregnancy. If an unplanned pregnancy is not a risk you are willing to take, then yes you should abstain.  There are SOOOOO many ways to prevent pregnancy and abortion isn't one of them.


Quoting Woodbabe:


Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

So...a couple married 10 years and done having children shouldn't ever have recreation sex again if they really don't want any more kids?

Yeah for single motherhood!

My man would be GONE.







Neon Washable Paint

ethans_momma06
by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Should we allow all the infants in the same circumstance to have their life ended too- just to be fiscally responsible?

The number that you have pulled out of the air, is just that. Pulled out of the air.

Yes. Having more children puts a larger strain on systems. That doesn't justify getting rid of the people. It just means that there would need to be a revamp in those systems- and in society- to manage better.


NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Agreed. That part in red is absurd.

Quoting LindaClement:

Actually: no.

I've been sexually active with dh since the birth of our second (and final) child 22 years ago. I have absolutely no intention of becoming celibate because we don't want more children.

And the fact that vasectomies can and do fail has nothing at all to do with that.

Quoting jwaren:

If a couple is 100% against another child, then yes Abstinance needs to happen. There is so much information out there about understanding fertility.  There are ways to get your risk really close to zero.  Backup methods, fertility planning, even surgical options are out there.  But sex can create babies. Couples need to consider all the options prior to having sex.  I know that after baby#5, dh and I don't want anymore.  We won't stop having sex because we don't want anymore, we will just take extra precautions to make sure it doesn't happen.  If it does, then that child will be welcomed in our family. We will make adjustments, we will find a way to make it work.  Why? Because that is what I agree to when I make the choice to have sex. 


Neon Washable Paint

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:51 PM

 Yes, but I think that failure rate assumes no human error, i.e., that the person taking the pill is doing so exactly as they are prescribed.  Many women do not.

Quoting LindaClement:

No. But the failure rate remains:

0.2% in the first year (comparable to the pill) and 0.7% over 5 years --higher than the pill.

That's a significant difference from 0% failure, which is ZERO pregancies in 10,000 women, not 20.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 Recently?

 

Quoting LindaClement:

That's hilarious.

My mom had 4 miscarriages on an IUD and my aunt delivered the IUD after my cousin and before the placenta.


 



 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN