TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal
Permalink  
 


Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy
 

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

notwantkidsmain.jpg
James Hamblin

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off at a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

The Nebraska state government, realizing the tremendous mistake it had made, held a special session of the legislature to rewrite the law in order to add an age limitation. Governor Dave Heineman said the change would "put the focus back on the original intent of these laws, which is saving newborn babies and exempting a parent from prosecution for child abandonment. It should also prevent those outside the state from bringing their children to Nebraska in an attempt to secure services."

One father dropped off his entire family.

On November 21, 2008, the last day that the safe haven law was in effect for children of all ages, a mother from Yolo County, California, drove over 1,200 miles to the Kimball County Hospital in Nebraska where she left her 14-year-old son.

What happened in Nebraska raises the question: If there were no consequences, how many of us would give up our kids? After all, child abandonment is nothing new and it's certainly not rare in the United States. Over 400,000 children are in the foster care system waiting to be placed in homes, thousands of parents relinquish their children every year. One woman even sent her adopted child back to his home country with an apology letter pinned like a grocery list to his chest. Whether it's because of hardship or not, many Americans are giving up on parenthood.

In February 2009, someone calling herself Ann logged onto the website Secret Confessions and wrote three sentences: "I am depressed. I hate being a mom. I also hate being a stay at home mom too!" Over three years later, the thread of comments is still going strong with thousands of responses -- the site usually garners only 10 or so comments for every "confession." Our anonymous Ann had hit a nerve.

One woman who got pregnant at 42 wrote, "I hate being a mother too. Every day is the same. And to think I won't be free of it until I am like 60 and then my life will be over." Another, identifying herself only as k'smom, said, "I feel so trapped, anxious, and overwhelmed. I love my daughter and she's well taken care of but this is not the path I would have taken given a second chance."

Gianna wrote, "I love my son, but I hate being a mother. It has been a thankless, monotonous, exhausting, irritating and oppressive job. Motherhood feels like a prison sentence. I can't wait until I am paroled when my son turns 18 and hopefully goes far away to college." One D.C.-based mom even said that although she was against abortion before having her son, now she would "run to the abortion clinic" if she got pregnant again.

The responses -- largely from women who identify themselves as financially stable -- spell out something less explicit than well-worn reasons for parental unhappiness such as poverty and a lack of support. These women simply don't feel that motherhood is all it's cracked up to be, and if given a second chance, they wouldn't do it again.

Some cited the boredom of stay-at-home momism. Many complained of partners who didn't shoulder their share of child care responsibilities. "Like most men, my husband doesn't do much -- if anything -- for baby care. I have to do and plan for everything," one mother wrote. A few got pregnant accidentally and were pressured by their husbands and boyfriends to carry through with the pregnancy, or knew they never wanted children but felt it was something they "should" do.

The overwhelming sentiment, however was the feeling of a loss of self, the terrifying reality that their lives had been subsumed into the needs of their child. DS wrote, "I feel like I have completely lost any thing that was me. I never imagined having children and putting myself aside would make me feel this bad." The expectation of total motherhood is bad enough, having to live it out every day is soul crushing. Everything that made us an individual, that made us unique, no longer matters. It's our role as a mother that defines us. Not much has changed.

"The feminine mystique permits, even encourages, women to ignore the question of their identity," wrote Betty Friedan. "The mystique says they can answer the question 'Who am I?' by saying 'Tom's wife ... Mary's mother.' The truth is -- and how long it's been true, I'm not sure, but it was true in my generation and it's true of girls growing up today -- an American woman no longer has a private image to tell her who she is, or can be, or wants to be."

meritbadgeman.jpg

 

 

At the time she published The Feminine Mystique, Friedan argued that the public image of women was largely one of domesticity -- "washing machines, cake mixes ... detergents," all sold through commercials and magazines. Today, American women have more public images of themselves than that of a housewife. We see ourselves depicted in television, ads, movies, and magazines (not to mention relief!) as politicians, business owners, intellectuals, soldiers, and more. But that's what makes the public images of total motherhood so insidious. We see these diverse images of ourselves and believe that the oppressive standard Friedan wrote about is dead, when in fact it has simply shifted. Because no matter how many different kinds of public images women see of themselves, they're still limited. They're still largely white, straight upper-middle-class depictions, and they all still identify women as mothers or non-mothers.

American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother. It goes against everything we've been taught to think about women and how desperately they want babies. If we're to believe the media and pop culture, women -- even teen girls -- are forever desperate for a baby. It's our greatest desire.

The truth is, most women spend the majority of their lives trying not to get pregnant. According to the Guttmacher Institute, by the time a woman with two children is in her mid-40s she will have spent only five years trying to become pregnant, being pregnant, and not being at risk for getting pregnant following a birth. But to avoid getting pregnant before or after those two births, she would had had to refrain from sex or use contraception for an average of 25 years. Almost all American women (99 percent), ages 15-44, who have had sexual intercourse use some form of birth control. The second most popular form of birth control after the Pill? Sterilization. And now, more than ever, women are increasingly choosing forms of contraception that are for long-term use. Since 2005, for example, IUD use has increased by a whopping 161 percent. That's a long part of life and a lot of effort to avoid parenthood!

Now, it may be that these statistics simply indicate that modern women are just exerting more control over when and under what circumstances they become mothers. To a large degree that's true. But it doesn't jibe with an even more shocking reality: that half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Once you factor in the abortion rate and pregnancies that end in miscarriage, we're left with the rather surprising fact that one-third of babies born in the United States were unplanned. Not so surprising, however, is that the intention to have children definitively impacts how parents feel about their children, and how those children are treated -- sometimes to terrifying results.

American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother.

Jennifer Barber, a population researcher at the University of Michigan, studied more than 3,000 mothers and their close to 6,000 children from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Barber and her colleagues asked women who had recently given birth, "Just before you became pregnant, did you want to become pregnant when you did?" Those who answered yes were categorized as "intended"; those who answered no were then asked, "Did you want a baby but not at that time, or did you want none at all?" Depending on their answer, they were classified as "mistimed" or "unwanted." Over 60 percent of the children studied were reported as planned, almost 30 percent were unplanned ("mistimed"), and 10 percent were unequivocally "unwanted."

The results of Barber's research showed that the children who were unintended -- both those who were mistimed and those who were unwanted -- got fewer parental resources than those children who were intended. Basically, children who were unplanned didn't get as much emotional and cognitive support as children who were planned -- as reported both by the researchers and the mothers themselves. Barber's research looked at things like the number of children's books in the home, and how often a parent read to a child or taught them skills like counting or the alphabet for the "cognitive" aspect. For the "emotional" support rating, they developed a scale measuring the "warmth" and "responsiveness" of the mother, how much time the family spent together, and how much time the father spent with the child. Across the board, children who were wanted got more from their parents than children who weren't. Children who were unplanned were also subject to harsher parenting and more punitive measures than a sibling who was intended.

Barber pointed out that this kind of pattern could be due to parental stress and a lack of patience that's "directed explicitly toward an unwanted child," and that a mistimed or unwanted birth could raise stress levels in the parents' interactions with their other children as well. She also says that in addition to benign emotional neglect, parenting unintended children is also associated with infant health problems and mortality, maternal depression, and sometimes child abuse.

[...]

When Torry Hansen of Shelbyville, Tennessee, sent her seven-year-old adopted son by himself on a plane back to his home country of Russia with nothing more than a note explaining she didn't want to parent him, she became one of the most reviled women in America. Russian officials were so incensed that they temporarily halted all adoption to the United States. We sometimes expect fathers to shirk their responsibility; but when mothers do it, it shakes the core of what we've been taught to believe about women and maternal instinct.

 

Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy argued in a 2001 Utah lecture, for example, that being female is seen as synonymous with having and nurturing as many children as possible. So when mothers abandon their children, it's seen as unnatural. This simplistic, emotional response to parents -- mothers, in particular -- who give up their kids is part of the reason Americans have such a difficult time dealing with the issue. As Hrdy says, "No amount of legislation can ensure that mothers will love their babies."

That's why programs like safe haven laws -- age limitations or not -- will never truly get to the heart of the matter. As Mary Lee Allen, director of the Children's Defense Fund's child welfare and mental health division, has has, "These laws help women to drop their babies off but do nothing to provide supports to women and children before this happens."

Unfortunately, discussing the structural issues has never been an American strong suit. Hrdy notes that legislators are too afraid to focus on sensible solutions. "Talking about the source of the problem would require policymakers to discuss sex education and contraception, not to mention abortion, and they view even nonsensical social policies as preferable to the prospect of political suicide."

If policymakers and people who care about children want to reduce the number of abandoned kids, they need to address the systemic issues: poverty, maternity leave, access to resources, and health care. We need to encourage women to demand more help from their partners, if they have them. In a way, that's the easier fix, because we know what we have to do there; the issues have been the same for years. The less-obvious hurdle is that of preparing parents emotionally and putting forward realistic images of parenthood and motherhood. There also needs to be some sort of acknowledgement that not everyone should parent -- when parenting is a given, it's not fully considered or thought out, and it gives way too easily to parental ambivalence and unhappiness.

Take Trinity, one of the mothers who commented on the Secret Confessions board about hating parenthood. She wrote, "My pregnancy was totally planned and I thought it was a good idea at the time. Nobody tells you the negatives before you get pregnant -- they convince you it's a wonderful idea and you will love it. I think it's a secret shared among parents ... they're miserable so they want you to be too."

By having more honest conversations about parenting, we can avoid the kind of secret depressions so many mothers seem to be harboring. If what we want is deliberate, thought-out, planned, and expected parenthood -- and parenting that is healthy and happy for children -- then we have to speak out.

 

 


This post is excerpted from Why Have Kids?

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/not-wanting-kids-is-entirely-normal/262367/?single_page=true



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

I hate the word "normal."

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Of course you do!

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I do think that Safe Haven laws should include kids of all ages. If people were using that, then why are they ending it? It seems like that is obvious there is a need for that.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Owl drink to that!

Status: Offline
Posts: 4799
Date:
Permalink  
 

Wow this is effed up. I'm child free by choice but I would never abandon my kids to an establishment if I did get pregnant, ESPECIALLY older kids. I've been with foster children and fostered a 12 year old and they are all kinds of messed up.

There was a thread a while back about a mom who deserted her family. If you hate your kids and life so much do what SHE did, take YOURSELF out of the situation, don't be a bitch and rip your kids from the only life they know.

__________________

Was it a bad day?

Or was it a bad five minutes that you milked all day?



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

All those "i love my kids but hate being a mother" type comments, those women just need to grow the F up. Sheesh.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

But, yeah, when I opened the article, I expected it to be about women just choosing to not have kids, not about idiot parents dumping their kids along the road. Not quite the same thing. Kind of insulting to childless women really.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Owl drink to that!

Status: Offline
Posts: 4799
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

But, yeah, when I opened the article, I expected it to be about women just choosing to not have kids, not about idiot parents dumping their kids along the road. Not quite the same thing. Kind of insulting to childless women really.


 I thought the same thing and I totally agree. 



__________________

Was it a bad day?

Or was it a bad five minutes that you milked all day?



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I post articles to as food for thought. Doesn't mean I agree or support it one way or the other.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

The implication is that women who are childless, if they had kids, would then proceed to dump them along the road. Which is ridiculous. Some women choose not to have kids but if they did , they would then be good parents and accept their responsibility. So, the premise of the article is ridiculous.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I think there should be Safe Havens so that people COULD have this option. ANd, then maybe those kids can get out of bad situation and the parents could get some help or whatever.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

NO, parents of children should not be able to abandon them. Parents are responsible for their kids, period. What the heck - a way to get rid of your kids and not pay child support? Scar the kids for life? What a horrible policy - I'm glad they fixed it and I feel sorry for the kids that had to suffer that abandonment. The problem is seriously a lack of teaching personal responsiblity - it's all about "me, me, me!". You have kids - you no longer come first, that is the way it is.

Safe haven laws should end upon the first birthday, IMO.

__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I understand what you are saying LL. Of course. But, what about parents who don't? I would rather have kids dropped off and at least have an opportunity to get the care they need than continue in homes like that.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I understand what you are saying LL. Of course. But, what about parents who don't? I would rather have kids dropped off and at least have an opportunity to get the care they need than continue in homes like that.


 In what, the foster care system, that is already bursting at the seams and doesn't have enough homes, and is ripe for abuse?  No.  I think it's perfectly fine that our laws require parents to provide food, shelter and clothing at a minimum.  And if they were to change the system and allow such abandonment (which I don't think they should do), I think parents should have to pay the state through the nose for the privilege.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 9194
Date:
Permalink  
 

The women in the article sounds selfish, spoiled and self centered. Children are not little puppies or kittens to be given away just because they decide they don't like taking care of them (not being responsible for a innocent little pet is selfish too).

I have no harsh feelings for couples/persons who choose not to have children. I know people may comment but, to me they are acting in a honest responsible way and not having unwanted children. That said I do know of some couples who did not want kids and a opps happens and they turned out to be Awesome parents.




__________________


On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lindley wrote:

The women in the article sounds selfish, spoiled and self centered. Children are not little puppies or kittens to be given away just because they decide they don't like taking care of them (not being responsible for a innocent little pet is selfish too).

I have no harsh feelings for couples/persons who choose not to have children. I know people may comment but, to me they are acting in a honest responsible way and not having unwanted children. That said I do know of some couples who did not want kids and a opps happens and they turned out to be Awesome parents.



 I agree.  Some people don't want kids.  I have kids, I love them, and I understand this.  Kids are a huge commitment, take all your time, energy and money, and choosing to NOT have them is a completely valid choice. I don't understand the shaming of people who choose not to have kids.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

I don't understand women who judge other women who choose to remain childless. I love my kids more than I ever thought possible, BUT I respect that not everyone, regardless of "plumbing," should be a parent.

DS2 is a MUCH better parent than DIL. He has a good instinct, because I know he's never read a book on raising kids!

flan

__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Status: Offline
Posts: 38325
Date:
Permalink  
 

Maybe those 5 kids whose mom drown them wouldn't be dead if she could have turned them over to some one.

There are many times I think a person gets to the point of needing an out. We allow for all kinds of things to have outs except being a parent.

Look. I have no idea how a mom can leave her child.

It seems to me there does need to be a place for older kids whose parents are at the end of their ropes.



__________________

A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Exactly my thinking Lilly. Why NOT have some kind of outlet? And, that can then lead potentially to counseling, etc?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Vette's SS

Status: Offline
Posts: 5001
Date:
Permalink  
 

VetteGirl wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

But, yeah, when I opened the article, I expected it to be about women just choosing to not have kids, not about idiot parents dumping their kids along the road. Not quite the same thing. Kind of insulting to childless women really.


 I thought the same thing and I totally agree. 


 That is what I was expecting. Wow, that just threw me for a loop.



__________________


Vette's SS

Status: Offline
Posts: 5001
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I understand what you are saying LL. Of course. But, what about parents who don't? I would rather have kids dropped off and at least have an opportunity to get the care they need than continue in homes like that.


 In what, the foster care system, that is already bursting at the seams and doesn't have enough homes, and is ripe for abuse?  No.  I think it's perfectly fine that our laws require parents to provide food, shelter and clothing at a minimum.  And if they were to change the system and allow such abandonment (which I don't think they should do), I think parents should have to pay the state through the nose for the privilege.


 I agree.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

How well is a child being treated at home if the parents don't want to raise or take responsibility? I would rather see kids live in orphanages than live under those circumstances. Maybe we need to go back to that. Pretending the issue doesn't exist past the age of 1 is foolish.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

I do think that Safe Haven laws should include kids of all ages. If people were using that, then why are they ending it? It seems like that is obvious there is a need for that.


No, it should not.  Parents need to be financially responsible for children the produce--whether they want them, or not.  It should not be up to the state and taxpayers to foot the bill.

Plus, the premise of this article is idiotic.  It's not talking about simply not "wanting" children.  It is talking about people who CHOOSE to have them--and then change their mind. 

 

That's BS.  That's part of being an ADULT.  You make the life choices that are best for you.  If you make choices you don't like--then tough t!tties, you have to live with the consequences like EVERY OTHER ADULT HUMAN on the planet.  



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

lilyofcourse wrote:

Maybe those 5 kids whose mom drown them wouldn't be dead if she could have turned them over to some one.

There are many times I think a person gets to the point of needing an out. We allow for all kinds of things to have outs except being a parent.

Look. I have no idea how a mom can leave her child.

It seems to me there does need to be a place for older kids whose parents are at the end of their ropes.


Because there IS NO "out".  Nor should there be.  If you choose to have kids, that's a huge commitment.  Society would break down if we allowed people to simply forget about the most basic of responsibilities.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Regular

Status: Offline
Posts: 367
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree that the title of the article is misleading...and that a lot of the article is BS.

People shouldn't just be able to abandon their children, but I DO think there needs to be more resources for parents who realize they are in over their heads...as a transition. Whether its classes or support groups or 2-hour day-care or temporary foster care.

Its great if you have a strong family network. Have people who can help you. But not everyone does. And sometimes one just needs to catch a break.

The law intended to address newborns being found in the trash, I think. Surely, some sort of program is preferable.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

ladyloonatic wrote:

I agree that the title of the article is misleading...and that a lot of the article is BS.

People shouldn't just be able to abandon their children, but I DO think there needs to be more resources for parents who realize they are in over their heads...as a transition. Whether its classes or support groups or 2-hour day-care or temporary foster care.

Its great if you have a strong family network. Have people who can help you. But not everyone does. And sometimes one just needs to catch a break.

The law intended to address newborns being found in the trash, I think. Surely, some sort of program is preferable.


But it doesn't sound like lack of resources is the issue with several in the article--they are just disillusioned.   Pretty entitled, actually.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Maybe those 5 kids whose mom drown them wouldn't be dead if she could have turned them over to some one.

There are many times I think a person gets to the point of needing an out. We allow for all kinds of things to have outs except being a parent.

Look. I have no idea how a mom can leave her child.

It seems to me there does need to be a place for older kids whose parents are at the end of their ropes.


Because there IS NO "out".  Nor should there be.  If you choose to have kids, that's a huge commitment.  Society would break down if we allowed people to simply forget about the most basic of responsibilities.   


 There is an Out.  Parents just ignore or neglect.  Or abandon their kids on the laps of friends or relatives.  Or harm or kill their children.



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6644
Date:
Permalink  
 

I'm a SAHM. There are days I'm desperate to get out of the apartment. I love my son but there are days where he gets a bug up his butt and drives me bonkers. But, I would never give him up. He might be a lil turd some days but he's my lil turd and I love him.

And, as usual, I will never understand why women who absolutely do not want kids don't take measures to make sure they won't have them. Same thing for men.

__________________

~At Gnome in the Kitchen~



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Maybe those 5 kids whose mom drown them wouldn't be dead if she could have turned them over to some one.

There are many times I think a person gets to the point of needing an out. We allow for all kinds of things to have outs except being a parent.

Look. I have no idea how a mom can leave her child.

It seems to me there does need to be a place for older kids whose parents are at the end of their ropes.


Because there IS NO "out".  Nor should there be.  If you choose to have kids, that's a huge commitment.  Society would break down if we allowed people to simply forget about the most basic of responsibilities.   


 There is an Out.  Parents just ignore or neglect.  Or abandon their kids on the laps of friends or relatives.  Or harm or kill their children.


 And that's a problem.  That our society grows people like that.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:

Maybe those 5 kids whose mom drown them wouldn't be dead if she could have turned them over to some one.

There are many times I think a person gets to the point of needing an out. We allow for all kinds of things to have outs except being a parent.

Look. I have no idea how a mom can leave her child.

It seems to me there does need to be a place for older kids whose parents are at the end of their ropes.


Because there IS NO "out".  Nor should there be.  If you choose to have kids, that's a huge commitment.  Society would break down if we allowed people to simply forget about the most basic of responsibilities.   


 There is an Out.  Parents just ignore or neglect.  Or abandon their kids on the laps of friends or relatives.  Or harm or kill their children.


And there are some consequences for that--at least the last one, and often the first one, depending on how extensive it is.  No way should they be able to abandon their children with no consequences.    



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah but wouldn't it be better to intervene prior to that?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

Yeah but wouldn't it be better to intervene prior to that?


I'm not against "intervention"--but intervention is NOT REMOTELY the same thing as abandonment.



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3029
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with the title of this thread. Not wanting kids is entirely normal.

However, if you don't want kids, don't have them. Allowing parents to abandon their kids under "safe haven" laws is not only stupid, it's dangerous. What happens if there's a genetic medical issue? How do they track it down or make the child aware of it?

Unfortunately though, with the anti-choice crowd's pushes and advancements in the fight against women's rights, abandonment situations are soon to become more likely, not less.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 10215
Date:
Permalink  
 

WYSIWYG wrote:

I agree with the title of this thread. Not wanting kids is entirely normal.

However, if you don't want kids, don't have them. Allowing parents to abandon their kids under "safe haven" laws is not only stupid, it's dangerous. What happens if there's a genetic medical issue? How do they track it down or make the child aware of it?

Unfortunately though, with the anti-choice crowd's pushes and advancements in the fight against women's rights, abandonment situations are soon to become more likely, not less.


Most of the examples given in the article are WAY beyond the abortion stage. 

 

Plus, you can easily give an infant up for adoption, anyway, so I doubt your last statement has any relevance at all.  I certainly doubt you can show that with any statistics.   



__________________

I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.

 

Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

WYSIWYG wrote:

I agree with the title of this thread. Not wanting kids is entirely normal.

However, if you don't want kids, don't have them. Allowing parents to abandon their kids under "safe haven" laws is not only stupid, it's dangerous. What happens if there's a genetic medical issue? How do they track it down or make the child aware of it?

Unfortunately though, with the anti-choice crowd's pushes and advancements in the fight against women's rights, abandonment situations are soon to become more likely, not less.


 Since safe harbor laws apply to young babies - abortion laws should have nothing to do with it.  It's not remotely the same as raising a child and suddenly deciding you don't want to deal with a teenager.  That's not about abortion - that's about irresponsibility and selfishness.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

Plus, providing access to birth control would help prevent this...not increase it.


And by birth control I do not mean abortion. I mean birth control pills that everyone is freaking out about health insurance covering.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1586
Date:
Permalink  
 


American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother.
___________________________________________________________________

that's just a stupid claim

__________________

" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:

Plus, providing access to birth control would help prevent this...not increase it.


And by birth control I do not mean abortion. I mean birth control pills that everyone is freaking out about health insurance covering.


 Who is freaking out over birth control pills?



__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

burns07 wrote:


American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother.
___________________________________________________________________

that's just a stupid claim


 Actually, it is a valid statement. How many newly married woman get asked when they are going to start a family, etc.?

It's just ASSUMED a woman wants kids.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

So what?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah, we "assume" a lot of things. Big deal.

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I assume at some point you might want to retire. Maybe you really plan to work until the day you drop dead. Is it wrong to ask the retirement question?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 25897
Date:
Permalink  
 

I assume that someone who has graduated from college and has a career and married might want to buy a home. So, is it presumptuous to say, Oh are you planning to buy a home? So, if their real plan is to live in a tent in the woods instead, is asking the question somehow an insult?

__________________

https://politicsandstuff.proboards.com/



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:

Plus, providing access to birth control would help prevent this...not increase it.


And by birth control I do not mean abortion. I mean birth control pills that everyone is freaking out about health insurance covering.


 Who is freaking out over birth control pills?


 A lot of people. You may remember Hobby Lobby suing and taking it to the Supreme Court and winning? They no longer have to cover birth control pills. 



__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Mellow Momma wrote:

Plus, providing access to birth control would help prevent this...not increase it.


And by birth control I do not mean abortion. I mean birth control pills that everyone is freaking out about health insurance covering.


 Who is freaking out over birth control pills?


 A lot of people. You may remember Hobby Lobby suing and taking it to the Supreme Court and winning? They no longer have to cover birth control pills. 


 The didn't sue about birth control pills.  Hobby Lobby has always covered birth control pills for their employees, even before Obamacare. 

They sued over the Plan B drugs that they consider to be abortificants.  Like the morning after pill and RU-486.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

I understand that. But they do not have to cover BC pills and now other companies don't either.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:

I understand that. But they do not have to cover BC pills and now other companies don't either.


 There is a difference between HAVING TO and DOING.  The objection is based on the government telling private business owners what types of coverage they have to provide, especially for elective drugs.  The government is just getting too big and too bossy.

 

And I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly.  Catholics should not be required to provide birth control. 

 

Hobby Lobby, however, provides a plethora of choices for birth control.  They also pay some of the highest retail wages out there, and give health benefits to all their employees.  The are an excellent company to work for, and people are just being really bitchy to them b/c they won't pay for EVERY kind of birth control out there.



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

There were quite a few people on here who didn't think that companies should have to pay for BC. I think if we truly want to end unwanted pregnancies, we should pass out BC like freaking Skittles.

In Colorado, a billionaire set up a foundation to pay for birth control for everyone in the state that wanted it. The state ran the program. There was a 40% drop in teen pregnancy and the state saved millions in Medicaid. Who knows how many children were saved from growing up with parents that never wanted them.

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

Status: Offline
Posts: 7536
Date:
Permalink  
 

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35% as well. So pass out the BC !!!

__________________

Out of all the lies I have told, "just kidding" is my favorite ! 



On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Status: Offline
Posts: 27192
Date:
Permalink  
 

Mellow Momma wrote:

There were quite a few people on here who didn't think that companies should have to pay for BC. I think if we truly want to end unwanted pregnancies, we should pass out BC like freaking Skittles.

In Colorado, a billionaire set up a foundation to pay for birth control for everyone in the state that wanted it. The state ran the program. There was a 40% drop in teen pregnancy and the state saved millions in Medicaid. Who knows how many children were saved from growing up with parents that never wanted them.


I'm one of them.  Telling someone else THEY have to pay for and pass out BC like freaking Skittles is not the same thing as someone choosing to hand out BC like skittles.  And I do not think anybody should be forced to pay for someone else's birth control. 



__________________

LawyerLady

 

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard