The irony of the abortion issue.

I am the fifth of five children in a Catholic family, a product of the failure of the so-called rhythm method. After me, they finally gave up on it and got my mother fixed.

Had abortion been available, I probably wouldn't be here. They could absolutely not afford another kid, but they figured it out eventually.
 
I am the fifth of five children in a Catholic family, a product of the failure of the so-called rhythm method. After me, they finally gave up on it and got my mother fixed.

Had abortion been available, I probably wouldn't be here. They could absolutely not afford another kid, but they figured it out eventually.
For many young women getting fixed while young is an excellent option that strengthens the nation. Imagine if 50 percent did that. No abortions.
 
Not only secure but have a huge nest egg saved before even dating.
Not a huge nest egg. But when two people marry they should be able to support themselves and provide for their needs or they shouldn't marry. My husband and I started out with absolutely nothing but a few personal belongings and one used car (with a car payment) between us and an empty bank account. His parents and my mom did not have enough themselves to help and we certainly didn't expect them to.

But we had good work ethic and at least some common sense and no sense of entitlement that suggested anybody but us was responsible to provide for us. And since most of our friends were in the same boat, we made our own fun that didn't cost much if anything and despite financial hardship, those early years were some of the happiest of our lives.

And not a single one of the dozen or so really 'poor' couples in our social circle didn't work themselves out of poverty and solidly into the middle class and some became pretty well to do. We didn't have welfare or food stamps or any other government assistance. But of all of us, there was one divorce. And though all had kids there were no abortions.
 
Last edited:
Not a huge nest egg. But when two people marry they should be able to support themselves and provide for their needs or they shouldn't marry. My husband and I started out with absolutely nothing but a few personal belongings and a car payment and an empty bank account. His parents and my mom did not have enough themselves to help.

But we had good work ethic and at least some common sense and no sense of entitlement that suggested anybody but us was responsible to provide for us. And since most of our friends were in the same boat, we made our own fun that didn't cost much if anything and despite financial hardship, those early years were some of the happiest of our lives.

And not a single one of the dozen or so really 'poor' couples in our social circle didn't work themselves out of poverty and solidly into the middle class. We didn't have welfare or food stamps or any other government assistance.
Well waiting until one has at least 6 figures saved before even dating is superior to working together from nothing.
 
I always have ... the OP condemns only the woman to this ordeal ... the father is excused to go impregnant more women ... that's no better than eating your own young ... the vixon certainly has to protect the kits from the dog-fox father ... same with brown bears ... fathers do eat their children in some mammal species ...

As a Christian, I advocate marriage before sex ... that pretty much eliminates the problem ... but that requires behaving like humans, not animals ... or at least mammals, a few bird species mate for life, it's still rare in nature ...

In today’s society, why hold the man responsible at all? Makes zero sense.

1. If, and only if abortion is legal, then it is simply a birth control method that she, and only she has authority over. If SHE decides to use or not use it, then she is solely responsible for that decision.

Should the man CHOOSE to support her should she decide not to use abortion, then good for him. But the government should not be able to compel him to become a father.

2. It was the lefts argument, during the same sex marriage debate, that sex is NOT ABOUT PROCREATION. But now it is? Having things both ways is what the left wants.

I disagree.
 
Well waiting until one has at least 6 figures saved before even dating is superior to working together from nothing.
Not in my opinion. Those of us who started with nothing and worked our way out of poverty seemed to be much happier and grounded than the very few of our generation who started out with everything.

As Tevye said of his daughter and her husband: "they are as poor as squirrels in winter but they are so happy they don't know how miserable they are."
 
In today’s society, why hold the man responsible at all? Makes zero sense.

1. If, and only if abortion is legal, then it is simply a birth control method that she, and only she has authority over. If SHE decides to use or not use it, then she is solely responsible for that decision.

Should the man CHOOSE to support her should she decide not to use abortion, then good for him. But the government should not be able to compel him to become a father.

2. It was the lefts argument, during the same sex marriage debate, that sex is NOT ABOUT PROCREATION. But now it is? Having things both ways is what the left wants.

I disagree.
Procreation is not a duty nor responsibility
 
Procreation is not a duty nor responsibility
But until very modern times, marriage was between a man and a woman and presumed that there would be children. The marriage laws in all 50 states, DC and the territories are for the purpose of establishing familial blood lines, property protection, and mostly consideration for children produced by the marriage.

All were not able to have children though many, perhaps most, of those unable to have their own kids went for adoption of children who enjoyed the same legal protections as biological children. But the culture presumed that marriage was for the purpose of forming family: mother, father and children.
 
But until very modern times, marriage was between a man and a woman and presumed that there would be children. All were not able to have children, but the culture presumed that marriage was for the purpose of forming family: mother, father and children.
It's good that the presumption is going g away. It's not necessary. A growing number of young couples aren't having kids. Good on them. There's no duty to have kids. That's just wrong to presume it.
 
It's good that the presumption is going g away. It's not necessary. A growing number of young couples aren't having kids. Good on them. There's no duty to have kids. That's just wrong to presume it.
Until there aren’t enough young to care for the elderly or defend the nation, then……..

HOLY SHIT, WHAT HAVE WE DONE!
 

Forum List

Back
Top