Nicolae Ceauşescu, abortion, and birth control, and the tragedy left behind

[ChristIsLord]

Nicolae Ceauşescu was the head of Romanias Communist party, he was essentially a maniac and plunged Romania into poverty rarely seen in the modern world.

he had a strict policy on no abortion and no birth control. in a post industrial nation riddled in poverty this turned out to be disastrous for tens of thousands of children born in Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu’s reign.

becuase of the enormous amount of births and desperate poverty children were simply abandoned by the thousands. this lead to orphanages where one nurse would be responsible for hundreds of infants or children. these babies would at times be alone for days or weeks at a time and not held aside from changings and feedings, and even then there was little to no contact. many thousands died from a disease called “failure to thrive”. this isn’t really a disease at all and the cause is unknown, essentially the baby dies from not being held and loved. the ones that do survive went on to live tortured horrible lives with tremendous detachment disorders, inability to love or properly develop a well formed conscience and many times turning violent.

there have been tens of thousands of victims that essentially stem from a policy very similar to that the catholic church promotes. in a post industrial revolution nation in uncertain times i think a place like romania is a perfect example to the morality of birth control, and even at times if early enough abortion.

 

[Gardenman]

So what exactly is your point?

The church does not and will not alter it’s stance on abortion depending on poverty or politics or anything else. Romania has the HIGHEST abortion rate of any E. European country.

Regardless, it’s not the FAULT of the children that an insane ruler ruined their country. These children are completely innocent, yet are paying the price for the sins of adults.

Abortion, reagrdless at what stage of pregnancy it is carried out is still the murder of a human being.

Yes, it IS a tragedy what happened with so many of those babies/children. Killing more of them before they are born isn’t the answer. I don’t know what is, but killing just isn’t the answer. It never is.

One of, or many of those children who were aborted or that died of neglect COULD HAVE BEEN the one(s) to ultimately come to leadership of that country and rescue it from it’s situation…we’ll never know.

When corrupt leaders destroy a country, and children die, it isn’t our place to kill even more of them (by abortion) because of it, with the thinking that killing them will spare them misery when they are born.

If you think the Catholic Church will “someday” allow abortion up to a certain point, you’re in for a VERY long wait. It’s never going to happen.

 

[Appleby]

My (foster) grandson was adopted from Romania. His mother spent a month there getting the paperwork done and helping out in the orphanage – right before Canada slammed the door on Romanian adoptions, as a matter of fact. Her son was an infant when she brought him home, but there is no telling what his prenatal environment was and he shows the effects. Lots of others were simply left to die by caretakers who were overwhelmed.

She told me that women dumped unwanted babies at the orphanages in waves. They simply did not want them. And she said that after Ceausescu and his wife were killed, the line-ups at the abortion clinics were wrapped around the buildings.

Truly that was a horrifying time in history.

 

[rwoehmke]

Ceausescu’s problem was not caused by a non-abortion, non-contraception policy, but by the failure to teach and enforce Christian, Catholic if you will, principles of sexual morality. When “love” is free someone else has to pay the price and in this case it was the thousands of abandoned children.

 

[Appleby]

Actually, no.

The 1966 decree

In 1966, the Ceauşescu regime banned all abortion, and introduced other policies to increase the very low birth rate and fertility rate - including a special tax amounting to between ten and twenty percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. The inability to procreate due to medical reasons did not make a difference. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over forty-two, or already the mother of four (later five) children. Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian State; few women ever sought this status, the average Romanian family during the communist era having two to three children (see Demographics of Romania).[3] Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.[4]

The government also targeted rising divorce rates and made divorce much more difficult - it was decreed that a marriage could be dissolved only in exceptional cases. By the late 1960s, the population began to swell, accompanied by rising poverty and increased homelessness (street children) in the urban areas. In turn, a new problem was created by uncontrollable child abandonment, which swelled the orphanage population (See Cighid) and facilitated a rampant AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s - created by the regime’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of the disease, and its unwillingness to allow for any HIV test to be carried out.[5]

[edit] July Theses

 

[Ridgerunner]

The horrible poverty in Rumania was caused by a ruler and his henchmen who wantonly squandered every asset the country had. The country was so unproductive that, like Stalin, he exported food to get foreign currency while Rumanians starved. One of the problems with socialist dictatorships is that about 1/10 of the people have to be on the government payroll to keep the other 9/10 in line. He also had one of the largest foreign spy networks in the world. A more evil man could hardly be imagined, short of perhaps Stalin, and perhaps not even Stalin.

The problem in Rumania was not prohibition of abortion. Ireland also prohibits abortion and, until the recent recession, had the highest living standard in Europe.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Nicolae Ceauşescu was the head of Romanias Communist party, he was essentially a maniac and plunged Romania into poverty rarely seen in the modern world.

he had a strict policy on no abortion and no birth control. in a post industrial nation riddled in poverty this turned out to be disastrous for tens of thousands of children born in Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu’s reign.

becuase of the enormous amount of births and desperate poverty children were simply abandoned by the thousands. this lead to orphanages where one nurse would be responsible for hundreds of infants or children. these babies would at times be alone for days or weeks at a time and not held aside from changings and feedings, and even then there was little to no contact. many thousands died from a disease called “failure to thrive”. this isn’t really a disease at all and the cause is unknown, essentially the baby dies from not being held and loved. the ones that do survive went on to live tortured horrible lives with tremendous detachment disorders, inability to love or properly develop a well formed conscience and many times turning violent.

there have been tens of thousands of victims that essentially stem from a policy very similar to that the catholic church promotes. in a post industrial revolution nation in uncertain times i think a place like romania is a perfect example to the morality of birth control, and even at times if early enough abortion.

Obviously, and unfortunately, your opinion puts you at definite odds with your user name. Why in the world…unless you have been banned from CAF…would you use that username when your opinions are so antichristian?

As for your opinion, it is the fault of the adults in Romania during that time that caused the problem of the babies. Ya know, there is such a thing as abstinance. Even married people are allowed to practice it. And parents abandoned their children. They have no moral right to do so.
To say that it is the teaching of the Christians and the Roman Catholic Church in particular that is at fault for the widespread suffering of so many children is just preposterous.
Lay the blame where it belongs. And it belongs at the feet of those who put no effort into abstaining…which is a fool proof and Church acceptable means of controlling getting pregnant. And it belongs at the feet of those who abandoned their children.

Lack of abortion and artificial birth control is just grasping at straws. It is an attempt to dissolve the responsible parties of blame. It may work in this life…but Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH, and trying to lie to THE TRUTH is absolutely useless.

Sex is a gift…but not a gift to be abused. People who obviously cannot afford to have more children at the risk of starving to death act irresponsibly by continuing to have sexual relations…even in the sanctity of marriage.

We are different from animals in that we can reason and choose our behavior…rather than follow instincts alone. And we shall be held responsible for our decisions.