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

(minimum 6 characters)

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 (41-50):
jwaren
by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM

My only statement of forcing others to live like me is that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. There is NO reason on earth a husband and wife cannot  have sex responsibly and not get pregnant. But if pregnancy is really that unwanted then abstinance should be an option to consider.  By using backup methods, and focusing on your fertility, pregnancy can be avoided.  


Quoting NWP:

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.









LindaClement
by Linda on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM

There are a number of things that interfere with the effectiveness of the Pill, even when it is taken exactly as prescribed. 

The failure rate is the same for Mirena, for the same reasons PLUS the fact that although implantation disruption is one effect of an IUD, it's not a perfect one.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 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.







GotSomeKids
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:02 PM

No one can afford them.  This is why we need to stop having so many damned unwanted kids and not make it about abortion and pro-life.  Try some damned protection!!!!!


NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM
1 mom liked this

Abstinence is not an option to consider in my marriage or that of most people. To state that couples who 100% do not want to have another child should have a sexless marriage is unrealistic and preposterous.

People have abortions for all kinds of reasons. Their reasons are very personal and no one else's business. Women do not need to justify or jump through legal hoops for making these very personal choices.

Quoting jwaren:

My only statement of forcing others to live like me is that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. There is NO reason on earth a husband and wife cannot  have sex responsibly and not get pregnant. But if pregnancy is really that unwanted then abstinance should be an option to consider.  By using backup methods, and focusing on your fertility, pregnancy can be avoided.  


Quoting NWP:

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. 


Neon Washable Paint

LindaClement
by Linda on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM
1 mom liked this

Should it be used as a form of dental hygeine?

What do you think an abortion does, if not 'control the frequency of birth'? 

Quoting jwaren:

My only statement of forcing others to live like me is that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. There is NO reason on earth a husband and wife cannot  have sex responsibly and not get pregnant. But if pregnancy is really that unwanted then abstinance should be an option to consider.  By using backup methods, and focusing on your fertility, pregnancy can be avoided.  


Quoting NWP:

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.










SandyLaxner
by Bronze Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM

This CONSERVATIVE would like to get rid of abortion bc it is murder.  $ Does not enter into my belief. 

jaxTheMomm
by Platinum Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:31 PM
1 mom liked this

Ok.

First of all, I highly doubt that parents who have their children removed due to abuse or neglect start out their lives as parents suspecting that they are going to be abusive or neglectful parents.  These things don't happen in a vacuum - poverty, stress, a history of abuse, all of these things contribute. 

So it seems rather odd that you'd expect a parent to "figure out" whether they might become abusive or neglectful from the get-go.

Secondly, parents who are obviously extremely abusive/neglectful are indeed charged and sometimes do time.

Lastly, it's expensive to put people in jail.  And the jails are already overcrowded.

So I'm sorry, but given the original premise of the question - what do you do if you suddenly get a large population of children in the foster care system if women that want an abortion are forced to remain pregnant - your answer doesnt' seem very logical.

Quoting purplerobin:



Quoting jaxTheMomm:

Children are not removed from their parents and placed in Foster Care because they can't afford to care for them.

And when children are placed in Foster Care, the #1 goal is to reuinite the family.  Kind of hard to do if you've imprisoned the parents.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.




I'm not talking about parents who should be reunited with kids. I'm talking about people who are neglectful abusive or both and should never have kept their kids to begin with. THOSE parents should've figured it out beforehand. What I SAID though was parents like that shuld be responsible for cost of foster care, because like I said, they should've figured out whether they wanted to be parents from the get-go.

And I never said that's why they're removed. I said they should pay because you shouldn't  screw up and be a bad parent for years and then all of absolved of responsibility.


a lot of people disagree that the goal is reunification btw...cps doesn't have a bad reputation for no reason.



EireLass
by Ruby Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:33 PM
1 mom liked this

Not sure I was being sarcastic though. Whenever this topic comes up, I ask the Pro-Life women what they are doing to help - they always reply that they are already a foster parent or they've adopted many.

Quoting lazycervix:

love the sarcasam! I wish that were true so that the children already in foster care group homes could have an actuall home with parents and love. My wonderful cousin has adopted 4 children total from foster. 3 of them are a sibling set she just adopted in december, but she is prochoice.

Quoting EireLass:

Didn't you know all the Pro-lifers in CafeMom are foster parents and adoption parents?


TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM
1 mom liked this

 Again, you don't get it.

Anyone who is prolife generally also advocates marriage before children, which everyone with half a brain understands is more financially stable and doable, as people generally have jobs and create stability when they marry.

Keep your pants on until you are married.  Have wanted babies within the confines of marriage. 

 It's all the same issue, not conflicting ones. 


Quoting brookiecookie87:

This reminds me how Pro-Life moms constantly fight abortions, and then scrutinize teens moms for having a kid so young, and single mothers for not waiting till marriage.

Then a lot of them get upset that these young teen moms and single mothers need help with feeding the kids and get upset with Politicians who want to help make sure these kids have food to eat :/


 

SandyLaxner
by Bronze Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

 


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.

LOTSA folks who are sur e that  they are done having children get sterilized.

 

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)



Featured