English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You say "don't abort." But when you vote, you don't vote for those who would support the government programs to aid people who have unplanned pregnancies. You say "adoption's a choice," yet many kids go unadopted. Foster programs all over the US are a mess. You say "be responsible for your choices" but then complain when people use government programs and vote for those that would end them. You say "prevent pregnancies" well, sometimes they happen anyway. What do you suggest for those teenage moms, whose parents kicked them out of the house, whose boyfriends don't want anything to do with them? Don't lecture me either. I'm asking for a possible solution here. The problem is very real and we have to offer these teens real solutions.

I'm not a pregnant teen. I'm a mother of two preschoolers.

Obviously education and preventative measures are best. However, I'm asking for solutions....once the pregnancy is an undeniable fact.

2006-06-25 02:17:54 · 24 answers · asked by bitto luv 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

24 answers

I got pregnant at 17 I was already out on my own. The father of my child told me to get an abortion. For me he aborted his parental rights in that moment. I chose to keep my baby. I had no family and no partner. I got very sick and had to quit my job to keep my baby. I ended up going on welfare to pay my bills and for medical insurance. My baby was born sick but I kept at it. I worked with him. When he was 6 months I dropped my welfare assistance and found a job. I support my son on my own for the first 6 years of his life. Anyone that lays down and gets pregnant should do so knowing that they may become a parent and they may end up having to support a child. I am pro-choice but not for me. Having an abortion can do just as much damage to a young girls mind as having to have the child and figuring out a way to support it. My son is 16 now and I am so glad I made the right choice. He scores in the top 5% of kids in his grade in the nation on standardized testing. He is a great athlete.He also is involved in animal rights and I am sure he is going to contribute a lot of good to this world. The world would have lost a lot if I chose abortion over struggle.
Love & Light
Sharon
One Planet = One People

2006-06-25 03:22:30 · answer #1 · answered by skippingsunday 4 · 8 1

Obviously, abstinence is the best solution but when you have a pregnancy that is already there, how about adoption? There are many people that really want kids but can't have them. Education on what the process is and practice on having a baby would be a real plus. I have seen programs that the teen gets to take a baby, not a real one of course, home and take care of it, feed it, change it, and it acts like a real one through the technology that is built in. Gives the young to be mother and/or father a taste of what it is really like after the baby is born. Sure could use a lot more of those classes in the schools. There are two ways to help the problem. I do not think abortion should be an option in any case but maybe rape but even then it should not be the first option but to be thought out and get some counseling first. IF parents taught abstinence first and formost, I think the problem would not be as big, along with cutting the programming that encourages teens to have sex with anything that comes along as is in most of the so called entertainment today. Go back to the standards of the fifties and sixties when it did not show even a married couple in bed together. When you have judges, doctors, nurses, everyone you see on the tube, having sex with anything that moves in every episode, what can you expect from teens? Clean up the airwaves, teach the morals at home and you will have a lot less even needing an answer to an unwanted pregnancy.

2006-06-25 02:31:46 · answer #2 · answered by ramall1to 5 · 0 0

What is abortion? Abortion is a very familiar word that no one has ever missed to hear about. Abortion is a vey delicate and emotional subject that has plagued human society where different opinions has risen. Pros and cons. Agree or not. Whatever the position, the bottomline is still killing a poor innocent and defenseless soul.

Abortion is one of the way out of guilt of mothers who failed in preventing their daughters from getting pregnant at an inappropriate time. The same is true with those who should not get pregnant outside marraige and those who get unplanned pregnancy. These are all products of human weakness that lead to sin. Women who get raped and gets pregnant are blameless but are in very unfortunate situation who needs everyone's sympathy and assistance but in this case abortion is still not the solution because the poor soul of the fetus is not to be blamed. Have you seen how the baby reacts inside the womb in an actual abortion? I did because I am a health worker. I believe that the only acceptable reason for abortion is when the life of one or both are endangered by such birth wherein a family member is force to choose between one of the two although the church still doesn't condone such belief.

2006-06-25 03:12:35 · answer #3 · answered by *** 3 · 0 0

For me, I vote for the people who promote those programs at the state and local level where they are actually effective. Federal mandates of welfare are expensive, clumsy, and slow. State and local programs (as well as private programs) are lean, fast, and effective.

I also believe that there should be enforcement on the state and local level for child-fathers who abandon their children.

This is a very complex quesiton that really can't be answered here but sure should be discussed more.

But the murder of an unborn child doesn't make everything else right.

Oh, and the people who are placing 100% of the blame on the mother--please just shut up. It's 100% the mother's fault and 100% the father's fault (and yes, I know that adds up to 200%). It's both their faults (hence the phrase "the two shall become one flesh"). Get it?

2006-06-25 03:15:40 · answer #4 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 0 0

well, there are two options: the mother can give up her child for adoption or the mother can try and take care of the child, but of course with help from friends(since the mother and the boyfriend seem not to care about the girl). the second option will be more difficult, in the fact that she will have to find a job, find a place to stay, be able to support herself and her baby( food, diapers, crib,etc). but if she has some support from friends, or maybe if there is a program to help her get a start on job, and get her life in order, then things will hopefully turn out better.

2006-06-25 02:31:17 · answer #5 · answered by Isabel 2 · 0 0

If any of us could answer a question like this we would have more to do than sit around and play on the computer.
I'm for choice and education. I don't know what else you could do. Part if the problem is that some young people who are not yet ready to be parents don't seem to understand that sex is not acceptance or love. It seems to be a dating tool that we use to find out if we are "meant to be together". It's also the way some people gain attention and "love". After the pregnancy, THEN they find out who loves them and who doesn't.
It's a very complicated problem....

2006-06-25 02:29:19 · answer #6 · answered by jymsis 5 · 0 0

Try to study the root cause of the problem. The whole problem arised out of premarital sex. When a female conceives, she has the responsibility to look after the child. No child is born without a father. Thinking from the child's side, he/she has the right to know who is his/her mother and father. This responsibility lies with the mother. So naturally the mother has to be cautious. This is the reason our society made the set up of marriage, giving birth to children and family life together.

We have today broken all these rules and asking for solutions. It is nothing but stupidity.

2006-06-25 02:50:40 · answer #7 · answered by latterviews 5 · 0 0

The only solution is for people to be taught the responsibilities of parenting and then keep their legs closed unless they want to be responsible. The government should not take taxes from responsible people to pay for the irresponsible peoples bad choices.

2006-06-25 02:27:21 · answer #8 · answered by maharet 6 · 0 0

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. The women you speak of, those who would have one, would seek one if it were legal or not.

The legality of abortion in the US has more to do with providing a safe, clean procedure than the moral issue of abortion is right or wrong.

Only one person can decide that , the woman. Everyone else should worry about their own lives and not other peoples business.

2006-06-25 02:25:21 · answer #9 · answered by JCCCMA 3 · 0 0

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).

The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt "so that her child comes out"; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.

This is because they, like older children, have souls, even though marred by original sin. David tells us, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Since sinfulness is a spiritual rather than a physical condition, David must have had a spiritual nature from the time of conception.

The same is shown in James 2:26, which tells us that "the body without the spirit is dead": The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child’s body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child’s body must already have its spirit.

2006-06-25 02:37:08 · answer #10 · answered by romeo4evernever 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers