The War on Women

[francisca]

A fetus right can’t supercede the mother’s right who nurtures it.

The mother nurtures the unborn. The fetus receives and gives nothing back.
God gives, we receives & gives nothing back.
We have no right whatsoever against God’s right to decide for us.
A fetus legal right is still under the mother’s legal right.
It’s own natural right doesn’t supercede the mother’s as long as it can’t live outside her womb

Let’s try another approach:

God has ordained His Law against adultery, which is punishable by death.
Should the child is the result of adultery, it’s existance is not ordained in accordance to God’s law.
However, God has loved us even as we were against God’s law (We were the children of the fallen Adam &Eve, all of us are children of sin).
So God-- out of His Free Will– decides to love us (to send his only begotten son to die for us on the Cross).
Should the mother choose to love the unborn child, then it should be in accordance to God’s Love, not according to ANY LAW.
because, love cannot be coerced. Love has to come from freewill.
Moreover, according to God’s Law, the fetus (from adultery) has no right to live.
There is no right of claim that a fetus can supercede against its mother’s rights.
Its mother can choose to nurture it and love it.
We can inform the mother about Love and persuade her to believe in it.
She decides whether she can give such love to it.

Another approach:

Abraham didn’t love Hagar.
Hagar bore Ismael simply because she was coerced to do so.
Ismael was the child born from adulterous relationship (Abraham’s) and idolatry believe (Sarah’s unbelieve)
Galatians 4:30
But what does our passage in scripture say? Rid thyself of the slave and her son; it cannot be that the son of a slave should divide the inheritance with the son of a free woman.

The fact that abortion is legal is an inevitable outcome from the fact that adultery is legal despite God’s Law is strongly against it.

I strongly believe that we can’t help any fetus without helping the mother.
We can’t protect any fetus from their own mothers. None of us can.
If you want to protect the fetus, then protect the mother first.
If you want to save the fetus, save the mother first.
Evangelize.

 

[NovusFidem]

The fact that abortion is legal is an inevitable outcome from the fact that adultery is legal despite God’s Law is strongly against it.

“Inevitable”?? Here in Brazil, abortion is illegal, even though adultery runs rampage.

Please, explain why it is inevitable.

I strongly believe that we can’t help any fetus without helping the mother.
We can’t protect any fetus from their own mothers. None of us can.
If you want to protect the fetus, then protect the mother first.
If you want to save the fetus, save the mother first.
Evangelize.

Protect the mother from what?

Let’s consider only the low risk pregnancies, which are the vast majority, and which are usually a result from consented sex, and which are the vast majority of abortions.

What is the risk for a woman in bringing this pregnancy full term, delivering the baby, and placing it up for adoption? Just answer me this, and don’t try to add other problems (like rape) into it - let’s solve one problem at time, ok?

 

[francisca]

“Inevitable”?? Here in Brazil, abortion is illegal, even though adultery runs rampage.

There in brazil, adultery run rampage, but there is zero (illegal) abortion I suppose? No?

Please, explain why it is inevitable.

You’ve just answered yourself

Protect the mother from what?

from death/ risk of death due to harmful means of illegal abortions.

Let’s consider only the low risk pregnancies, which are the vast majority, and which are usually a result from consented sex, and which are the vast majority of abortions.

What is the risk for a woman in bringing this pregnancy full term, delivering the baby, and placing it up for adoption? Just answer me this, and don’t try to add other problems (like rape) into it - let’s solve one problem at time, ok?

Funny you bring up adoption finally.
As if I disagree to adoption. I’ve been suggesting adoption as alterntive to abortion

 

[CatholicHockey7]

You’ve just answered yourself

How exactly did he answer his own question? And, by the way, this statement doesn’t count as answering the question. So again, please explain exactly why it is inevitable.

from death/ risk of death due to harmful means of illegal abortions.

What risk? In 1972, before Roe v Wade, there were only 88 total deaths reported from abortion complications both legal and illegal. Now I will certainly grant you the likelihood of these being underreported, but looking at other years this is hardly the epidemic you make it out to be. In 1965, for example, there were 235 abortion-related deaths according to the National Center for Health Statistics (better known today as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). While this number is also likely lower than the actual total, experts believe the total was still less than 1,000.

To be fair, there were only 12 reported deaths in 2009 according to the CDC. All were from legal abortions. However, this data includes only 45 of 52 reporting districts. And if we accept there was a reason to under report abortion deaths before Roe, and a reason to overestimate them (as NARAL Founder Bernard Nathanson admits they did), then we have to accept the same can be said today.

But if you believe we should keep abortion legal because of the number of deaths we might have, should we also make driving illegal? In 2013 there were almost 33,000 fatalities from auto accidents in the US. What about smoking? There are more than 480,000 deaths each year according to the CDC. If our goal is to prevent death then shouldn’t we apply that to everything?

We also have to look at why abortion-related deaths have declined. They’ve been declining since the 1940s. In fact, the steepest declines occurred between 1940 and 1974, especially after 1965. During that same time period (and all the years since), pregnancy-related deaths fell across the board at the same rate as those related to abortion. What factors could affect all pregnancy-related deaths? Increased quality and access to pre-nantal care, penicillin, legalization of birth control (1965), and other medical advances post-WWII.

straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions

Funny you bring up adoption finally.
As if I disagree to adoption. I’ve been suggesting adoption as alterntive to abortion

Honestly, I haven’t noticed you making this suggestion. Maybe it’s been lost in your Planned Parenthood talking points.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Some food for thought, courtesy of a 12-year-old girl!

lifesitenews.com/media/this-speech-on-abortion-by-a-12-year-old-left-her-pro-choice-teacher-speech

 

[vz71]

Some food for thought, courtesy of a 12-year-old girl!

lifesitenews.com/media/this-speech-on-abortion-by-a-12-year-old-left-her-pro-choice-teacher-speech

Wow.

 

[Murmurs]

I find this “war on women” meme to be rather contrived as a way of justifying what under any normal human circumstances would be akin to a dereliction of responsibility.

Is there any similar eventuality where a human (or any other moral agent) can declare their right to “autonomy” to override moral responsibility at a time when the lives of other human beings are in jeopardy?

We can, for example, construct parallel cases.

1. A soldier at war in the heat of battle. The soldier, assuming they have volunteered to shoulder the responsibility of defending their country from a belligerent enemy is being relied upon to risk life and limb for comrades and citizens. Now suppose when needed the most – in the middle of an assault or defensive maneuver – the soldier decides to assert “bodily autonomy,” claiming their country has no “right” to expect that kind of sacrifice from him/her and simply walks away from their duties –*goes AWOL. Would you support this kind of desertion of responsibility and a claim that their abdicating responsibility to country and compadres is justified by a claim to “autonomy” and any attempt to hold them liable is a “war on soldiers?”
2. Another parallel would be absentee fathers. Why couldn’t fathers of children – or parents in general (women included, I suppose) – be accorded the right to walk away from all responsibility vis a vis their responsibilities and justify that abdication under the rubric of “war on fathers?”

Why, in other words, are ONLY women accorded this special privilege (If we can call it that) to commit heinous acts or walk away from taking responsibilities with regard to babies they have created and subsequently justifiy that dereliction of responsibility by deflecting blame to others using this rather mind-bending meme of “war on women?” Personally, I don’t see it.

You can call me a mysogynistic wart if you wish, but I don’t see that that kind of special pleading works here. If you think the priniciple of “autonomy” can be used to defend women’s “choice,” then I fail to see how it CANNOT be used by soldiers facing the demands of duties they no longer “choose” to take on and fathers/parents who want to flex their autonomy vis a vis shouldering parental responsibility. Everyone, it seems to me, ought to be “free” to walk away from moral responsibility under the same general rules – that could lead to some rather messy moral implications as mass murderers may simply wish to no longer be moral agents and declare that their actions are ONLY defensive responses by asserting that society is actually making them act by its “war on those who choose not to be moral.” They, too, will want to claim society’s moral rules are a heavy burden to carry because they want to be “free” and “autonomous” in their choices.

Of course, this is all nonsense – but it is just as much nonsense coming from the mouth of a woman about to kill the human being she helped to create and then wishes to be rid of all responsibility for this baby by deflecting the blame for her moral abdication onto the actions of others.

I wouldn’t ever call you a mysogynistic wart (nor think it for that matter)! To be honest I’m not sure of the extent to which we disagree, so much as have a different perspective on things, which may or not be a result of our (I assume) differing genders.

But anyway…

One thing no one tends to mention, or at least consider the implications of, is the fact that abortion is legal already. So the ‘right’ (however nefarious and misplaced) to abortion is a matter of law (or court ruling, in the US, which has the force of law, because that’s how the legal system works). To never grant the ‘right’ to have an abortion (as is the case in more than a few countries round the world), I do not believe constitutes part of a ‘war’ on women, at least insofar as legal and legislative activity in those countries is part of it.

However I do see how desiring, campaigning, or actually in fact, to remove or curtail that established legal right can be construed as being a ‘war’ on women. It’s attacking a right which legally it has been decided women have. It is just as much an act of ‘war’ (not really ‘war’ but we kind of understand what we mean), as are attempts to overly-curtail the right in the US to own firearms, are a ‘war’ on guns, or gunowners, or gunowning culture, or whatever. It is a series of acts calculated (however well-meaningly) to take away an established right. And the people who have that right - women, gunowners (or rather American citizens), whoever - understandably get antsy when people try to undermine that right.

That’s the perspective I think from which we have to understand the issue.

I also think the ‘parallels’ you construct don’t quite work - or rather they do but they rest on the assumption that a woman who is pregnant has that responsibility regardless, to carry her pregnancy to term without a medical emergency pointing contrarywise.

Those who support the right to have an abortion, do not see that responsibility as existing, because even those who might consider that human life begins at its conception, understand that a right to do whatever a woman likes with her own body, including whatever’s growing inside it, supersedes it at least until (usually) the point of viability. (Which is a ‘moral rule’ in our societies, the US and the UK, or most of the Western world, that beyond that point it is no longer, emergencies perhaps excepted, reasonable for the woman’s right to override the responsibility. Before that, it’s clearly not generally considered by the majority as morally valid).

So while I actually agree with what you say - I can’t imagine any out-and-out supporter of abortion accepting the premise, so I’m not sure how well it works.

 

[francisca]

Honestly, I haven’t noticed you making this suggestion. Maybe it’s been lost in your Planned Parenthood talking points.

Wow, somebody try to make it look like I am defending planned parenthood.

Obviously you don’t really read my posts then.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

I strongly believe that we can’t help any fetus without helping the mother.
We can’t protect any fetus from their own mothers. None of us can.
If you want to protect the fetus, then protect the mother first.
If you want to save the fetus, save the mother first.
Evangelize.

I can understand this. The mother is the one who is giving the child life. If the mother dies, the baby dies along with her, if early enough in the pregnancy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can understand this. The mother is the one who is giving the child life. If the mother dies, the baby dies along with her, if early enough in the pregnancy.

I am not clear how your understanding works, then.

The mother is the one “giving” the child life in a roughly similar way in which any person “gives” life to themselves. That is, they are responsible to do the best they can to keep themselves healthy, active and contributing members of the human moral order.

If someone decides they cannot carry on, it appears that a person contemplating suicide is in the same position vis a vis their own existence as a mother carrying a child in their womb; it is just that in the case of the would-be mother, the human being in jeopardy is not their own self but just happens to be another. In the case of a potential suicide, the human being in jeopardy happens to be the person him/herself.

I fail to see how this is very different from, say, a potential murderer contemplating the death of another human being, however. In all three cases, someone is making a rather arbitrary decision that the intrinsic value of a human life (whether self, unborn human or another being) is secondary to some other value, be it material goods, emotional satisfaction, safety or another gain of some sort.

In the case of abortion, it appears that society has arbitrarily decided that gains to the mother (no matter what they may be) will always outweigh the moral worth of the child. In the case of suicide, society is gradually changing its views (beginning with permitting euthanasia) towards some extrinsic “goods” overriding the intrinsic value of life.

For now, modern western society still recognizes the intrinsic value of the life of another with regard to the murder or wanton killing of its members. However, there are some indications that this, too, is being eroded at the edges. For example, the willingness of SJW types to remove the right to make a living or have access to freedom from those who dissent from the “narrative” is slowly creeping towards devaluing the very right to life of dissenters (or, at least, the right to the possibility of living a life.) Depriving bakers of gainful self-employment, civil servants of freedom by jailing them or putting the possibility of employment in certain fields out of reach of those not willing to accede to dogmas of “social justice” (i.e., doctors with regard to abortion and contraception, judges with regard to SSM) are examples of devaluing the lives of certain members at the expense of others’ views.

It isn’t much of a step from here to the utter contempt towards the lives of some shown by socialists such as Stalin or Mao regarding those who stood in the way of the full expression of certain ideologies.

This is to say that by permitting anti-life ideologies to form social and political policies over sound ethical principles such as justice, liberty and the intrinsic right of human beings to life, the value of human life is being undermined from within the very structures that are supposed to safeguard it - law, politics, education and health care.

I can understand this. The mother is the one who is giving the child life. If the mother dies, the baby dies along with her, if early enough in the pregnancy.

To address this point more specifically, what you seem to be insisting on is a kind of begrudging concession as to the value of preborn human beings - “Well, okay, the lives of the preborn have value, but only provided it costs nothing for would-be mothers to support that value.”

Granted, you don’t come right out and say that, but the dependency of the baby on the mother does not automatically grant the mother a right to her life over the baby’s right to life. If the value of their lives is basically and intrinsically equal, then the proper view would NOT be to directly kill one to save the other, but, rather, to do everything possible to save both without prejudice, no?

Why does the fact that the baby’s life depends upon the mother accord the mother “priority” rights? Does that mean because young children depend upon their parents for the wherewithal they need to survive, that parents, too, can determine the value of the lives of children? Or that the right to life of parents exceeds the right to life of their children? Or that the right to life of children DEPENDS upon that of their parents? Why would we think that except for some emotional prejudice harbored with regard to parents over and above children - which is what appears to be the case with women defending a woman’s right to abortion. There is a kind of hidden prejudice towards the mother at cost to the baby.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Honestly, I haven’t noticed you making this suggestion. Maybe it’s been lost in your Planned Parenthood talking points.

A word of advice…

Be aware of those who engage in obscurantisme terroriste.

Here is an explanation/example of what it means to engage in the “terrorism of obscurantism.”

With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2015/05/d-b-hart-and-terrorism-of-obscurantism.html

Have you notIced any examples of it in this thread?

 

[NovusFidem]

I went back to look up where you defended adoption instead. While I’ll give you - you do care about the women, kudos to you! - I kind of gave up by page 13 or 12.

Instead, I found something else.

with Abortion being Illegal:
no statistics, no data

Funny you would speak of statistics. The famous United Nations criticized Brazilian legislation (against abortion) and demands answers regarding the death (due to clandestine abortion) of 200 thousand women, annually!!

I mean, wow. Large numbers right there. Which brings us to the question: HOW did they manage to get those statistics??? I mean, if abortion is illegal and all.

Let’s find out!

Here, we have something called **DataSUS[1] **- it contains every sort of statistical numbers regarding health, life and death - how many died from natural causes, from accidents, murder, cancer, liver failure… Think a cause, they have the statistic.

That includes a very special statistic - number of death of women in fertile age. This includes the death of EVERY women from 10 to 49 years of age, from every conceivable cause (asthma, car crash, murder, cancer…)

In 2013, there were 66.790 deaths of women in fertile age. That alone debunks United Nations statistics, that claimed 200.000 deaths from abortion ALONE.

Moving on.

From those 66.790 deaths, 1.686 were “maternal death”: women who died during or right after pregnancy. That includes women who **wanted **the child: women who were pregnant but died from accidents not-related to their pregnancy, women who died at birth, due to complications and so on.

Now, by causes. There were 1.148 deaths from** direct maternal causes** - meaning, obstetric complications resulting from interventions, omission of treatment, incorrect treatment or all of the above. From that, around 13,4% are death resulting from abortion[2] (which, BY THE WAY, includes spontaneous abortion - miscarriages) - that would be 153 deaths by abortion (unwanted or otherwise). Every YEAR.

That is how we get our statistics. If a woman shows up dead, we will know the cause, the case will be investigated. If it is investigated, the data will be put up for further studies. If Brazil, whose legislation is hardly ever applied, is able to keep up this sort of data, why couldn’t a country like the USA?

no regulation, no standard practice
victims unreachable, everything happens in secret

Secret from whom? How many teenagers hid their abortion from their parents, in the country where abortion is not only legal, but dearly protected? How many teens have the protected right of choosing abortion without needing adult consent?

And how many of them deeply end up regretting their choices, made when they were so young and unknowing, due to the secrecy allowed? Perhaps, had they told their parents, they would receive help in raising the child instead (which happens a lot here; grandparents raising their grandkids, for better or worse)

Here? Here the clandestine operation is so obscure that a poor teen girl would hardly be able to find it without help, much less pay for it. A rich girl might have better chances of paying for it. Most just opt to carry out the pregnancy - in peripheries, it is almost a badge of honor to be Sixteen and Pregnant (the “at least I got laid” mentality). SAD image, I know, but better than Sixteen and Regretting my Abortion…

Which brings us to the case: a clandestine clinic would follow strict procedures - they win NOTHING by letting a woman die. In fact, whenever one does, the Federal Police goes out to hunt them. So, for their own good, clandestine operations offer clean and “safe” practices (safe for the mother, at least).

disappear from public eyes
it will surely continue happening despite being invisible

It never disappears. It is constantly debated, as many feminist claiming the 200.000 deaths/year say legalizing would make this procedure safer - for the mother, that is.

with Abortion being Legal:
…]
The women are given informed choices
…]

Here they receive “informed choice”. When you have to pay as much as they ask, and seek sketchy information after clandestine clinics, you must really know what you are paying for.

In the USA? They are told the baby is a bunch of cells, are not shown the ultrasound[3] (many ask not to see, actually; they know it might change their choice), and are blissfully ignorant of what they are really doing there - truly “informed” choices!

By being legal,** they made abortion a commodity, a merchandise**. It is something to be sold - Planned Parenthood get NOTHING from insisting women to choose life. Instead, they NEED to convince them that’s what they want, that’s what is best for them; that is how they get their money.

I’ll give: if abortion was given for free by public hospitals (which I’m not sure you guys have in the scale Brazil has), at least it would not receive so many incentives; nurses would be able to act Christian and convince girls of better options - something Planned Parenthood will **never **do.

Tl;dr: in the end, legalizing abortion is still a worse choice than prohibiting/placing harsher laws over the practice of abortion.

Sources!!
[1] tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/tabcgi.exe?sim/cnv/mat10uf.def (in portuguese, sorry)
[2] saude.sc.gov.br/inf_saude/sim_informacoes/Nota_tecnica_CIT_Portaria1119_materna.pdf
[3] youtube.com/watch?v=k_b17lo5AtA

 

[Peter_Plato]

I also think the ‘parallels’ you construct don’t quite work - or rather they do but they rest on the assumption that a woman who is pregnant has that responsibility regardless, …

Those who support the right to have an abortion, do not see that responsibility as existing, because even those who might consider that human life begins at its conception, understand that** a right to do whatever a woman likes with her own body,**

Doesn’t a right “to do whatever a woman likes with her own body” essentially conflict with the responsibility to be a moral agent?

I suspect it does because “whatever a woman likes” as a right seems to be an uncompromisable right in the way it is expressed by you above as understood by many.

The following blog article looks at the implications of that “right” from the perspective of how it impinges upon the gamut of responsibilities of women.

winteryknight.com/2015/09/06/marital-neglect-should-a-wife-deny-or-withhold-sex-from-her-husband/

You may want to read it because it seems to demonstrate that such a comprehensive “right” is not a sustainable, practical or even coherent real life “right” when really thought over.

 

[francisca]

I have been trying to reorganize my thoughts, so that it will be easier to understand

Woman’s Right vs Fetus Right:

At the earliest stage of pregancy, the fetus depend its life on the mother.
It has no legal right until it is born and reach adult age.
Naturally, it can’t exist without the mother at the earliest stage of pregnancy.
Without the mother, a fetus can’t exist, therefore, in my opinion, even it’s own natural right comes from her mother’s willingness to carry it and give birth to it. Otherwise it has no natural right.
This earliest stage of pregnancy is the time when most abortion takes place.

I am not disputing church teaching about life begin at conception.
Neither do I try to give right to women to abort their fetus at certain age of pregancy.
I am merely stating the fact that mothers give to fetus its natural existance, and not the otherway round

Driven Conviction:

My stand for legal abortion is mostly because my opinion is affected from my experience long time ago when my friend attempted successfully to abort her pregnancy alone with a very dangerous means, despite I told her not to… This has convinced me, that no matter what the law says (abortion was illegal in my area), when a mother has decided to abort her pregnancy, nobody can help that fetus.

Statistics vs Compassion:

I also have conviction that illegalization will not reduce abortion into rarity as long as adultery is rampant. Therefore the related question is “how many is the acceptable/ ignorable number?”

Because of the two factors above, I thought/ think that the work of making already-legal-abortion into illegal is not worth the value of pro-life work since it doesn’t make much difference in term of saving life (based on the assumption that number will not fall significantly, and even if it is significant, it will not become “rarity”. Each life is precious, can’t be ignored).

Pragmatism vs Morality:

I do recognize the difficulty in the area of moral conflict in terminating biological life of a fetus at the early stage of pregnancy. I try to solve this problem by weighing the benefit of saving life as compared to being lawfully righteous. I believe that “the potential of saving life” outweigh the calling of being “lawfully righteous”. I believe this, because I assume legal abortion-- despite morality-- can have better chance to save the fetus, by communication with the mother prior abortion surgery.

Man’s Equal Friend:

I also see in many culture in which women are used for mere child-bearing, these people who are the children of such culture, they treat women horribly. In extreme cases, women are raped, wives abused & the husbands unpunished, girls being deprived of education & freedom, being murdered by family members for being raped, men critizised women clothes in relation to their value as a woman, virginity decides girl’s dignity, and so on. These facts is in line with Sarah vs Hagar teaching (Genesis15-21, Galatians4:25) in which Hagar was coerced to bear a child she didn’t want. Now we see the children of Hagar: men who coerce women with power in the way they treat women, instead of trying to alleviate womens suffering into her calling to become man’s equal friend.

Legal Adultery vs Legal Abortion:

Although adultery is legal, people understand that adultery is bad morally, so therefore,
I believe, people also understand that despite abortion is legal, abortion is bad morally.

Medical Ethics into Law for Abortion Clinics:

In the end, when being confronted with this question:

• how many abortion cases can we close our eyes from/ how many is ignorable (after it becomes illegal)?
  I think the answer to such question should be:
• Every woman who want abortion has the right to know her alternatives, just as in any other surgery cases: “what her alternatives other than surgery?”. This is medical practice standard that has to be practiced by all surgeons, not only in abortion cases (to tell patients their alternatives other than surgery). Thus it is part of medical ethical practice to give each woman a chance to reconsider adoption/ re-think-over before abortion surgery. I beleive this rule has been in medical ethics, but need to be pushed into “clinics-operational” law, I suppose.
• By giving each woman a chance to re-think, then we also trust each woman’s motherly instinct will guide her in her informed-decision, and prevent her from making decision based on fear, worry, ignorance.
• Surely PP (abortionists) business would prefer otherwise, therefore the law shoud do the work. This is a better way than to fight for illegality of abortion altogether.

Contra:

On the other hand, If none of the above can be done/ too difficult to implement/ wrong assumptions, then… well, illegality may drop some number, no matter how small… statistics approach, no compassion approach.

I think I have stated all my opinion, I do not know how to go further from here (at least for now).

I do not want to go against church teaching. I am trying hard to explain my position within biblical and even secular justice. I see secular justice as part of God’s ordained power (1Samuel8, Mat22:21) in this world.

 

[Athanasiy]

Thankyou Athanasiy for your beautiful testimony.

I think we have to differentiate though between woman’s personal choice in her life, and policy making for handling woman’s health.

We do have to encourange women to be couragious and optimistic and choose life. We should not make policy that get women’s life a compulsory suffering.

Women and children need to be protected nowadays more than ever from the culture that harms family and women and their children.

Thank You Sister!
You see some times there is a great need to teach young mothers to be careful about money. Sadly, there are women who think that being a mother of many children she would not have to work and can carelessly live on state money. Certainly the government should take care of mothers, especially of mothers of large families. But what if the state in dire economic condition and unable to support large families?
But there are ignorant people who perform one commandment of God, and ignoring the ‘‘Wisdom of God’’.
Here the example of this young woman I’m talking about:

-She spends a lot of money on coffee and cigarettes (if she will get rid of these habits, she will save some money)
-She likes to buy the foreign food in soft packages instead of buying more inexpensive but useful product in bulk and stretch out the food for the whole month.

• Buying clothes or shoes for children she prefers brand new staff ( although she could buy in the second-hand store, the old, but quality stuff, and could save enough money. The money saved is money earned )
  -Having the ability to cook at home, she frequently loves to snack in the street cafes(in our culture, delicious homemade food is healthier and cheaper)
  -Of course young beautiful woman wants to dress, but some things are expensive, that you would rather save money and you can cover the material needs.

I came to the conclusion that many young mothers do not know how to properly dispose of the budget, and thereby jeopardize the welfare of children. Тhere are countries where it is very difficult economic situation, where mothers with many children receive very little pay. Тo be careless in costs and spendings you can jeopardize the children.
The mother of 3 kids gets 94 USD per month.
(and the problem is that she should look about the same amount of money for other needs such as - utilities, for the needs of the school or kindergarten, treatment of children, not to mention the other necesities and basic things that we need in our daily life.)

 

[Athanasiy]

That’s why the rejection of the manner of the consumer society, “the foundations of home economics” and “household budget” is the an important need.

 

[francisca]

Thank You Sister!
You see some times there is a great need to teach young mothers to be careful about money. Sadly, there are women who think that being a mother of many children she would not have to work and can carelessly live on state money. Certainly the government should take care of mothers, especially of mothers of large families. But what if the state in dire economic condition and unable to support large families?
But there are ignorant people who perform one commandment of God, and ignoring the ‘‘Wisdom of God’’.
Here the example of this young woman I’m talking about:

-She spends a lot of money on coffee and cigarettes (if she will get rid of these habits, she will save some money)
-She likes to buy the foreign food in soft packages instead of buying more inexpensive but useful product in bulk and stretch out the food for the whole month.

• Buying clothes or shoes for children she prefers brand new staff ( although she could buy in the second-hand store, the old, but quality stuff, and could save enough money. The money saved is money earned )
  -Having the ability to cook at home, she frequently loves to snack in the street cafes(in our culture, delicious homemade food is healthier and cheaper)
  -Of course young beautiful woman wants to dress, but some things are expensive, that you would rather save money and you can cover the material needs.

I came to the conclusion that many young mothers do not know how to properly dispose of the budget, and thereby jeopardize the welfare of children. Тhere are countries where it is very difficult economic situation, where mothers with many children receive very little pay. Тo be careless in costs and spendings you can jeopardize the children.
The mother of 3 kids gets 94 USD per month.
(and the problem is that she should look about the same amount of money for other needs such as - utilities, for the needs of the school or kindergarten, treatment of children, not to mention the other necesities and basic things that we need in our daily life.)

Well, if she’s raising 3kids with only USD94 per month, I’d say she’s an expert in money-saving.
She has lived like a saint, despite her shortcomings, because she has done the impossible.
Besides not only money is important. She need to be able to go on living day by day, it’s not only about money saving. How do you care for children if you can’t have even a moment for yourself? That’s irrational expectations for a mere human being.

 

[Athanasiy]

Well, if she’s raising 3kids with only USD94 per month, I’d say she’s an expert in money-saving.
She has lived like a saint, despite her shortcomings, because she has done the impossible.
Besides not only money is important. She need to be able to go on living day by day, it’s not only about money saving. How do you care for children if you can’t have even a moment for yourself? That’s irrational expectations for a mere human being.

Yes, but if the reality is very harsh, then you have to have even more cautious attitude to costs and spendings.
Survive those who live in the village and who has a small piece of land, those who have relatives who can support, and of course those who have husbands working, preferably the professional builders, but even better IT-specialists.
The most important thing that she does not drink alcohol and is not addicted to any bad habits, the only levity as I realized is that she believed that the state will take care of her and her children. But unfortunately it is the fate of millions of women.
The husband is extremely valuable creature in such situations.
So - take care of the men dear women.
I mean, before to say ‘‘get lost’’ to your husband, - think well how much risk you are exposing your self and your children.
In the Western World, of course the woman is protected and the family is financially protected. What may seem a heroism for the Western World that is the common reality for millions in the Third World countries. In any case, these examples show that if it is difficult right now for you -you should know that the other is even more difficult.

 

[francisca]

Yes, but if the reality is very harsh, then you have to have even more cautious attitude to costs and spendings.
Survive those who live in the village and who has a small piece of land, those who have relatives who can support, and of course those who have husbands working, preferably the professional builders, but even better IT-specialists.
The most important thing that she does not drink alcohol and is not addicted to any bad habits, the only levity as I realized is that she believed that the state will take care of her and her children. But unfortunately it is the fate of millions of women.
The husband is extremely valuable creature in such situations.
So - take care of the men dear women.
I mean, before to say ‘‘get lost’’ to your husband, - think well how much risk you are exposing your self and your children.
In the Western World, of course the woman is protected and the family is financially protected. What may seem a heroism for the Western World that is the common reality for millions in the Third World countries. In any case, these examples show that if it is difficult right now for you -you should know that the other is even more difficult.

I’m sure no woman wish to separate/ divorce from her husband for no good reason.

Irrational demands to women doesn’t stop knowing women are between hard walls in societies.

And women also told to “take care of your men”, eventhough the husband being “extremely valuable” arguable depends on what he contribute to the marriage. Some men are only problem and refuse to contribute in sharing the burden of the marriage other than their money. Is money that important? I’m sure it is important, but so the respect towards women when they’re tired and can’t have sex, unless “please contribute to the household, dear, so I wouldn’t be so dead tired while your demands getting more and more irrational” kinda thing. The irrational part is, men think they’re sex gods, and when their wife dead tired taking care of the household and the children, they help themselves with the privilidge of sex gods somewhere else, spending family fund for their own fun.

Irrational demands to women by our society is the enemy.

 

[Athanasiy]

I’m sure no woman wish to separate/ divorce from her husband for no good reason.

Irrational demands to women doesn’t stop knowing women are between hard walls in societies.

And women also told to “take care of your men”, eventhough the husband being “extremely valuable” arguable depends on what he contribute to the marriage. Some men are only problem and refuse to contribute in sharing the burden of the marriage other than their money. Is money that important? I’m sure it is important, but so the respect towards women when they’re tired and can’t have sex, unless “please contribute to the household, dear, so I wouldn’t be so dead tired while your demands getting more and more irrational” kinda thing. The irrational part is, men think they’re sex gods, and when their wife dead tired taking care of the household and the children, they help themselves with the privilidge of sex gods somewhere else, spending family fund for their own fun.

Irrational demands to women by our society is the enemy.

Her cohabitant must take financial responsibilty for the kids, i wonder that she does not insist to bring him to financial responsibility.
I agreed to help to some extend because she is beautiful woman and she lived a life not in vain on this earth.
But I am not going to do it forever. And it’s really strange that the father is so easy ran away from his liability.
But in the case of government support i think that the family is the basis , the foundation of any country, any nation.
With regard to assistance to such mothers I believe that the government does not care for the family institution enough. If they can not tax the oligarchs then let them tax us the old bachelors, or let them find means by other means. You can not support the state not supporting a family
No country and no nation can be built without a family.