I don’t actually think that requiring unmarried parents to give up their children and pretend they were never pregnant is necessarily a good thing. It is not true that no one ever knows. The parents know, and they grieve. God bless adoptive parents who are willing to raise another parent’s child as their own, but better that it be because the parents decide that the possibility of raising their own child is not in the child’s best interest, rather than automatically having to give the child up to avoid shame. Fear of shame is a terrible reason to have to give up one’s beloved child.
Sure. But at least the child lived. Killing it cannot be regarded as a better outcome.
I wonder why those birthing homes are not as available now? There is no reason that the agency providing the home, whether it be a Church-sponsored agency or some other charity, has to be the adoption agency as well. I’m sure that whoever provides these women a home could easily make arrangements for another adoption agency to take the babies. One might argue that the Church does not want to turn over babies to an adoption agency that might place the babies with a same-sex couple or something else the Church cannot condone, but isn’t that better than having the babies die?
“In my great and unmatched wisdom”. He is a “great looking and stable genius”. His “IQ is one of the highest”. He “has the worlds greatest memory” . I do not think many of us think this way.
Most people do not brag about the stuff that Trump did on the Billy Bush tape.
In numbers, probably because of abortion and women keeping their babies themselves in combination.
Maybe I know more vain people than you do. I know a lot of professionals and business leaders and the narcissism is breathtaking at times. Trump simply says out loud what others show by their actions.
Trump didn’t actually say he did any of that stuff on the Billy Bush tape. He was making fun of groupies and said one 'could" grab them, and so on.
He can be a cad and sometimes acts the part. I do not grant that he is a “complete narcissist”. True complete narcissists rarely accomplish much of anything in life, though lots of people have some degree of narcissism. And he is certainly not a cad all the time. I can easily think of worse things other politicians have exhibited and done. Doesn’t mean any of them are ok.
www.rasmussenreports.com
I see. Then I misunderstood your post. When you said “Back in the “bad old days” before “choice”, women who got pregnant could go to birthing homes” I assumed you were implying that today they cannot do that. But from what you are telling me now, they no longer do that because they don’t want to do that. In that case your post would have been clearer had you said “Back in the “bad old days” before “choice”, women who got pregnant would go to birthing homes.” OK, I got it now.LeafByNiggle:
In numbers, probably because of abortion and women keeping their babies themselves in combination.
Now wait a minute. This is a totally different answer from what you gave before. When I first asked why these birthing homes were not as common, you said it was because women were choosing abortion instead, or were keeping their babies. That implied the homes declined because of a decline in a demand for them. But now you are saying the reason for the decline was something quite different. You are saying the Dems are driving them out by requiring that adoption agencies adopt out children to homosexual couples. But that was the answer I anticipated in my first response. I said that the birthing homes need not function as adoption agencies too. They can just be birthing homes. They can easily make arrangements with a secular adoption agency to take the babies after they are born. Or perhaps when the women go the hospital to give birth, the hospital can take care of contacting an adoption agency. So the Catholic birthing home need not do any adoption placement at all. And anticipating that you might say the Catholic birthing homes don’t want to give babies to any secular adoption agency, I said “Isn’t it better than having the babies killed by abortion?” If the presence of these homes might be a deterrent to abortion, isn’t it better to deter abortion than to fail to provide that deterrent?
I was thinking of a relative who has kept her child and raised him, because shame didn’t keep her from doing it, and another relative who gave up her first born, married the father of that child and had a family that was always missing its oldest child. Shaming didn’t just lead people to give up children they would have kept and parented themselves. It also leads to abortions, especially in places where the shaming can realistically go to life-threatening lengths.
That’s the most likely outcome because there will be no Republican primary, due to the GOP embracing the kind of rigged set-up that was criticized when it was Democrats doing it. (Actually, to my mind this is even worse than packing the nominating convention with unelected super delegates.)
Doesn’t the fact that you found one crime of many in one of fifty states make you just a little suspicious of this statistic as anything to base an opinion on? It could either be a statistical anomaly for this time frame, or even racial scapegoating.