Katrina
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Katrina
-
-
This is where differences in worldview and function of gvt comes into play.
You're right, it is a difference of world view, and neither of us are correct or incorrect.
Absolutely.
This meshes very well w/ my view of the gvt's role limited role: enforcement. enforcing laws.
Well, I expect more from my government. Again, not right or wrong, just how I am.
I'm not ignoring gvt's responsibility -- I'm disagreeing w/ your assessment of what the gvt's role/ responsibility IS.
When you get into the role of the gvt providing various services, you start entering the realm of "how best to forcibly acquire and spend other people's money w/o their consent."
I was giving examples to prove my point. But I never stated I thought we should raise taxes to pay for these services. I personally think we do better for nonprivate organizations to perform many of these services and offer tax breaks to make it easier to afford them. You're assuming a lot that I didn't say.
Right.
I am willing to support the gvt in enforcing anti-abortion laws if they set up the law the way i want to see it. :D
And theres the crux of it all, isn't it? ;)
right --but studying our history shows an amazing amount of charitable organizations that have existed long before tax breaks were available. ;)
No, people were just asking why they have to do anything just because they don't believe in abortion, and I was agreeing with them. Charity is doing something you don't have to, not because of tax breaks.
-
clarification:
just because something is a non-profit does not mean it is endorsed by the gvt. In fact, most churches are non-profit, and the gvt is explicitly told to NOT endorse any one religion.
The gvt has merely recognized its monetary status and business structure.
:D
Well, you're right that endorse isn't the right word here, I'm trying to get other chores done here and typed that pretty quickly. But, collecting taxes or giving tax breaks is still governtment involvement.
-
My ds (now age 4) was a part of a texas-wide television campaign to get the word out about the "Baby Moses" law in Texas... we spent 6 hours in 100 degree heat shooting a public service announcement that has saved over a dozen lives in Texas to date. I wish the tv stations would show this PSA more, but I have only seen it shown when babies have been saved and the news is focusing on it. We give our time, and our finances to save babies. Here is the link to our website (I encourage you to get involved!):
See, this is great. A not for profit, all volunteer organization, endorsed by the government (monetary donations are tax deductable), and babies lives are being saved. I'd jump on this bandwagon anyday.
-
You and me both on the multi quote thingy.
I'm not sure what you mean about having no right to make laws about protecting children from abuse if children are the responsibility of their parents. I'm not seeing why it is not right to make laws governing the treatment of children simply because children are the responsibility of their parents.:001_huh:
Well, what I was saying is that of course it's right to makes laws protecting the treatment of kids. But when we make those laws, we are aknowledging that the government has the right to step in and take over the rights of the parents who are breaking those laws. So it's no longer the parents rights, but society's rights and responsibily to make sure those children who are taken away from their parents are being cared for correctly. Just one example to make a point. (extreme example: If I were to step into an abortion clinic tomorrow to have an abortion and the government were to stop me because it was against the law, then technicaly the baby is no longer my responsbility because I was trying to kill it, so it becomes the governments responsibility. Not that this is a good example, I'm just trying to help you see my point of view. I'm better at explaining these things verbally than writing. Sorry.)
The fact that children are the responsibility of their parents means that both unborn and born children should be nurtured, loved and protected by their parents. The law is there to guarantee that they get that nurture, love and protection. If people always did the right thing we wouldn't need laws. People don't, so we do.
Well, I guess in a nutshell, I see it as a two seperate issues. First there's the individual issue. I agree, I think my children are my responsibility. To carry them to term, to raise them in a nurturing, stable home. To oversee their education. To provide them with medical care. When it comes to what really should be private, individual responsibilies I do agree with you.
But when we start talking about legalities, then we are no longer talking about individual rights. We are talking about what the government says. If the government is going to dictate what I can or can't do, then the government better have some responsibility in the consequences of those laws. We outlaw stealing, and we have a process to deal with people who steal. If the government is going to outlaw abortion, then we can jail every woman who has an abortion, and every doctor who performs them.
Now...on a personal level, I would prefer a government to me more proactive and not so much reactive. I think it's better to help prevent a crime than it is to punish a crime. No, we're never going to stop every act of injustice in America. But I would argue that it's better to try. IF the government is going to outlaw abortion, then they should have programs offering help, adoption programs, childcare help, postpartem depression help, whatever.
I'm sure many people here are going to start srceaming socialism, and their right. I'd prefer non government options like the many Peek listed to help mothers in need. But we just can't ignore the governments responsibilities when we use the government. (I hope I'm making sense. It sounds right in my head because I understand what I'm trying to say. ;))
If we're going to take the responsibility to vote for antiabortion laws, then we also are taking responsibility for voting for those consequences. The consequences can be either good or bad, but we have to own them.
Now, as far a charity goes, it is no ones responsibility to perform charitable acts for any person or cause. That's why it's charity, helping someone because we want to, not because we have to.
-
I do. I did a few years ago more than I do now, mainly out of laziness. My favorite company to use is Nature's Sunshine. I love, love, love them. :)
-
Why are pro-choicers shocked and disturbed when mothers (and fathers for that matter) throw their newborns in dumpsters and off bridges, drive their toddlers into lakes, shake their babies to death, etc. sometimes killing their children only moments after giving birth, but find it perfectly acceptable for mothers to kill their children moments, days, weeks, months before they are born?
See, to me that's the whole point of the matter. Why is it alright to outlaw abortion and then not do anything to help prevent the mothers from throwing their babies in the dumpster or off bridges because they feel that they have no other options. Yes, as has been pointed out they really do have other options, but when freaked out they don't research them, use them, or think about them even.
The responsibility for the welfare of the child lies squarely on the individuals who participated in the act that they knew could possibly produce a child.
Personally, if the responsibility for the child is the parents, then we have no right making laws about the child, born or unborn. If the responibility for caring and wellbeing is the parents, then why don't we get rid of laws preventing child abuse? Why not let homeless kids wonder the streets picking through garbage bags looking for food. After all, it's not my responsibility.
Now, I know that's not what your saying, so please don't get take it the wrong way. I'm just pointing out that we do already assume the wellbeing of children society's responsibility (teachers can be prosecuted if they suspect child abuse and not report it, we pay for police and social workers to remove children from abusive situations, etc.) Just food for thought.
Seriously, someone's going to have to teach me how to multi quote. :glare:
-
Most people know, they just don't care.
Frankly, I haven't been in a situation where I needed this type of support so no, I truly don't know what's out there. And frankly, I don't see how you can make such a blanket statement saying what most poeple know. There's no possible way you can know what other people know. (I feel like I'm talking in a circle, you know??? :D)
With the ease of googling, it is impossible to NOT know about pro-life organizations that offer a tremendous amount of support unless one is deliberately not looking.
And you know what? You're probably correct on this point. But (assuming teen pregnancy here) the organization that gets the most media play is Planned Parenthood. That's where I went when I needed to get the pill. And I think that when girls get pregnant, they probably are scared and instead of taking the time to think and research it, they go to the first place they've heard about...aka Planned Parenthood.
Manymanymany women who go in for an abortion turn down pleas and offers of help and instead go for the abortion.
I do think that abortion is so polarizing that people refuse to listen to the other side, even when they should. I'm sure pro-life people get tired of the names they get called, and I'm pretty darn sure pro-choice people are tired of the names they get called as well. I personally don't see how we plan on solving this issue when our (as a society) discussion skills are no better than a 5 year olds.
For obvious reasons, the only times we as a nation discuss the legalities of abortion are during elections, and while I think seperation of church and state is a good thing, I do wish all these types of organizations that you listed could be brought out for a "real" discussion about women's options. I admit, I'm guilty as well. We tend to focus on issues that concern us directly. I know tons about homeschooling because I homeschool, I know tons about cubscouts because I was a cubscout leader. I tend to follow discussions about possibilites of spinal cord regeneration because my mother was a quadriplegic. I don't follow cancer treatment developments because I don't have cancer.
I do try to work with teens when I can in volunteer positions because I think that busy teens are less likely to get into trouble. I would never have an abortion unless it wasn't a viable pregnancy (like a tubal pregnancy) and (not or) my life was in jepordy as a result, so no, I don't know about all the different organizations. (and I knew I'd never be a teen mother because I wasn't engaging in certain behaviors.)
-
I guess I don't understand why putting a baby up for adoption many times isn't an option for people considering abortion... Adoption is so much more a better option than killing an unwanted baby. Abortion is the most selfish act I can think of... and I just can't understand the pro-choice mentality. The baby didn't do anything wrong - especially nothing that would deserve death.
I, personally, would adopt in a heartbeat, no matter what the sacrifice, so that a baby could live.
Personally, I would love to see adoption as a more viable option. I haven't read past your current post, but just because someone is pro-choice does not mean they are pro-abortion. Part of MY concern is if we outlaw abortion then we as a society will just say "problem solved." Having abortion move back underground does not solve the problem. Trust me, I can name plenty of reasons why not to have an abortion.
-
One young woman was molested by her uncle. Her father threw her out when he found she was pregnant. She was a minor and our agency had an attorney on the board who helped her become emancipated. A family took her in, and the agency helped her find an adoptive family for the baby. She was an inspiring young woman. She went through counseling for dealing with the molestation and all the after effects and, as far as I know, became a stable, well-balanced adult.
When I'm no longer homeschooling, I'd like to volunteer at a CPC again.
Oh, that story about makes me cry, for both what the girl had to endure, and the help she received.
-
I don't see the question as a red herring at all. Many of us (myself anyway) that vote pro-choice might be willing to take a closer look at voting pro-life if we knew there were programs in place that offered help to both the mother and the child with the end goal in mind of helping the mother become a self sufficiant member of this society, regardless if they were offered by the government, private organizations, or charity.
I think if we as a society pass laws telling us what to do, it is very irresponsible to do so without considering and trying to negate the negative consequences of said laws. And trust me, being someone who grew up receiving social security checks and free school lunches and basically living off government support, it's much less costly to help someone be self sufficient than having them be a permanent financial drain on society.
For the stealing analogy, yes we do pay for it. We pay for it with high prices in the store which helps cover the costs of the stolen merchandise. We also pay with our taxes to put the criminals in jails, the upkeep of the jails, for their lawyers, etc.
-
just discussing abortion doesn't get a thread closed. :)
I think we're just now starting to make progress in the discussion --sometimes it's slow going to establish a foundation for discussion.
just let those of us who are comfortable discussing it..... discuss it. :D
Well, I'm not a moderator, so discuss away. :lol: I was just enjoying this thread as it was causing me to do some internal examination about how I'd handle that situation, and I think internal examinations are good for the soul. ;)
As much as I wish we could discuss a wider range of topics on these forums, emotions do tend to run high on certain topics and things get out of hand. But, your right, as long as it is just a discussion then have at it. :D
-
Please please please please please don't turn this into an abortion topic and get this thread closed down. I think we can agree that opinions probably wont be changed, and even though I have gotten into the abortion and other political topics on these boards before, this particular thread was really making me to think how I would deal with a teen pregnancy. There was a lot of food for thought here and I'd like to see it continue.
Anyway...back to the OP. With my dd, I would absolutely help her out. I'd consider her job going to school. Having her drop out would in no way prepare her to take care of her baby in the long run. I'm already a SAHM, so staying home while she went to school would be fine by me. Although I must say it was intersting that in all my mental planning I was assuming she'd be in public school. Duh...we homeschool, and currently plan to during highschool, so that really wouldn't be an issue for us. Although as most others mentioned, she wouldn't be participating in extra curric regardless. I think if she were homeschooled then it would be easier to get a job and not feel like she was leaving her baby all the time. That's what kept going through my head...how do teen moms go to school, work, and take care of baby without help?
I'm kinda agreeing with the "no party" idea. At least to some degree. My sister got pregnant at 17. Yes, at first my mom freaked out, but then tried to do what she could to be supportive of my sister. (My mom was pro-life so the topic of abortion never came into play.) She had a small baby shower, helped get things ready as much as she could. (She was a quadriplegic so it was mostly giving advice type of stuff.) Within a year of getting pregnant, both her best friends got pregnant on purpose. They though it would be fun to be moms together. I wouldn't mind a show of support from older women type of thing, but I disagree with glamorizing teen pregnancy.
Now...if my son got a girl pregnant and she kept the baby...most of the same rules would apply. He'd have to at least offer to watch the baby to help the mother out. Since I know we would have little control over the mom's decisions, it's harder to speculate, but he'd be stepping up as much as he needs to. He'd have to drop out of all extra currics as well and work as much as possible to help support that baby.
-
well, right now they are 11 and 13, but pretty soon they will be 12 and 14. Like I said, I haven't been that consistant with cursive, and when they were younger a lot of the classical method just didn't "click" with me. I wish I'd done more narrations and copywork, but it's a little too late for that. (A little advice: if SWB says to do something, just do it. So many things that she recommended I didn't do and wish I had.)
I would like to have all 180 passages typed up, printed, and bound into a book so each day they can just turn the page and have their next passage all ready.
I was just looking for an easy resource, but the above posts have inspired me to be a little more creative. I went ahead and purchased Living Memory. I remember when it first came out and all the hupla (is that a word?) on these boards about it, so I figure it'll be a good resource regardless. I like the wikipedia idea. Now I'm thinking maybe for each week I can have one poetry selection, one lit selection, one paragraph about something interesting in history, and maybe one for science. Maybe one Bible quote could take up the last day.
-
thanks guys!
-
Where can I get some really good copywork sources? My kids are rather old and their cursive stinks. I haven't been that good about making them practice. My goal this year is to finally buckle down and make them do it. I want them to do a paragraph a day, so I'd need about 180 assignments. Thanks!
-
- I sleep with my eyes open.
- I've started to snore so loudly that my husband has threatened to make me sleep in the guest room.
- My kids are going to visit their grandparents for two weeks and I CAN'T WAIT!!!
- I sleep with my eyes open.
-
Submission is not being a doormat. It's not being a broken down, weak woman. In fact, it takes much more strength of character to be submissive than it does to be bossy and aggressive.
Um...I am so not in charge of my marriage. I had a passive agressive father, and that isn't what I wanted in my marriage. I didn't want to marry a child.
I'm not sure why women think that "being in control" is so important. There isn't a control. Yes, the final decision belongs to my husband - he is the sole supporter of us - the priest, the protector, and the provider. However, he has NEVER made any decision without discussing it with me fully. That's love and respect.
I think that this perception is part of the semantics problem. Submissive wives resent being called a doormat, while non submissive wives (or at least myself) resent the insinuation that we are bossy, in control, and our husbands bow down to our every whim. That is SO not my marriage.
Honestly, I am the happiest woman on earth. My husband is an amazing man who loves the children and I above all else. He is constantly caring for us and doing for us. I can't be thankful enough for the man that he is.
And in turn, I WANT to do things for him....cook his favorite meals, rub his back, etc. He's never demanded or even asked that I do those things, but I do because I love him. That's the same reason I'm submissive - because I have 100% faith and trust in him and in his beliefs....I know that he will NEVER make a decision that will harm us in any way. His every thought is for our well-being - and ours should be to him.
In a lot of ways I could have said the exact same things. I feel that I have the best marriage on earth, I enjoy doing things for him to show him I love him, and in return he does things to show me he loves me.
Feminism has nearly ruined our world. It's ruining families and marriage and women. It's a sad state our world is in when a woman is made to feel less because she isn't like a man. I like being a woman!
Actually, my husband is more of a professed feminist than I am, and I don't see how he's ruining the world. He lives up to his responsibilities and is a terrific husband and father. He likes the fact that I'm all woman, and I love the fact that he's all man. I love being a woman too! :lol:
I'm not sure how to explain this is non-Biblical terms...but for me, I constantly remember that it is better to live on the corner of the roof of the house than to have to live with a nagging, complaining wife. I'd rather have my man in the house ;)
Again...just because I'm not submissive doens't mean I'm a complaining, nagging wife. I have no more of a need to be in charge than he does.
-
I'm sorry I haven't read every single post, so maybe someone has mentioned this already . . . "submissive" is not the same as "inferior", "incapable", "less worthy", "stepped on" etc. etc. There are many, many occasions where we all submit to others in our daily lives. In fact we "without question" submit (or at least we should) to the police office who pulls us over. We submit to our boss' orders. We even submit to the mom holding the "STOP" sign when the kids get off the bus on the corner! Yet, when it comes to submission in marriage it is "horrific" "degrading" "BSDM" whatever that is (I think I have an idea). And since true submission is a sign, a picture of how the Church (bride) is to relate to Christ (bridegroom) I don't see why a non-Christian would want to have any part of it, kwim?
I may be wrong, I'm just saying how it reads to me. AND growing up in a church where we were taught to be submissive to our husbands.
When I submit to the police officer, it's because I know I'm under his authority and he can put my rear in jail. I submit to my boss (when I worked) because he could fire me if I didn't perform my job well. I submit to the mom holding the stop sign because I recognize that the school that the mom is volunteering for has the authority and job of protecting the students in their care and I don't.
Also...in my family most probably have submissive type marriages and you would never call any of the women door stops or whatever. That's not the point. I just think that there's a lot of "equal but not equal" double talk when it comes to the subject of submissive marriage. And that's not what I've seen on this board, but from growing up in that atmosphere.
-
Frankly...I think the word "submissive" is at the heart of the matter. It doesn't matter what a marriage looks like from the outside, being submissive is more of an internal matter. Submissive wives view their husbands as the head of their households. Husbands view their wives as under their authority.
Just because on the outside some submissive households function like many other nonsubmissive households, it doesn't mean they are the same.
:grouphug:
-
A Christian friend of mine pointed out something to me which I had never noticed/considered before. She said that the scripture about submission is addressed TO wives. It is NOT addressed to men, and any time a man quotes that scripture to his wife (in a controlling way), or uses it to dominate her, he is misusing it AND ignoring the scriptures that ARE addressed TO him. He has been commanded to love his wife as Jesus loved the church, which is a lot more difficult and humbling than the command that women were given. That was a take on the situation which I had never thought of before, and I found it very interesting.
I think that line of reasoning is rather demeaning to women. It reads to me as if women aren't capable of more. Men are supposed to be spiritually better than women which is why they are given the harder commandment.
-
Passion is a big part of your life, which makes sense for a pirate. You're musical, and you've got a certain style if not flair. You'll do just fine. Arr!
-
Can your husband talk to her?
Was she calling to talk to you or the kids? Because if she was wanting to talk to the kids I'd make a rule that your kids can't answer the phone.
This may be a more expensive option, but what about getting a second phone line? Give workers comp the new number and leave other nonemergency numbers (like your MIL) with the old number. Then you could safely turn off the ringer.
-
My kids tend to be more free ranged than most on this forum, but I wouldn't be comfortable having my dd watch that age group for 7 hours a day. A couple of hours or a mommy helper situation is fine, but with 7 hours you've also got to factor in things like meal prep, eating, and clean up while managing young kids. That would be a little too much for my dd at least.
-
Okay, now I'm curious. Is there proof that screaming takes away energy from pushing?
Regarding baby birthing shows, what makes me laugh are women in labor who do their hair and makeup before the birth. LOL! I looked downright frightful.
:D
I have no clue about the screaming part, but with #2, I was grunting pretty loud with each contraction/push. The nurses told me that when I grunt I'm basically pushing against my diaphram and not my uterus. By not grunting I was able to focus my energy where it needed to be.
If you are opposed to abortion, what do you do for the unborn?
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
Well, I think I'm going to bow out now, not over hard feelings or anything, I've just got chores and errands to run and need to get on with life. :)