Home - List All Discussions

PL Couple Needs $$ Help!!

Quints born to poor couple

by: MoonLady

Last week, a couple who chose not to abort when the woman became pregnant gave birth to quintuplets conceived without having fertility treatment of any kind. The father is 25 and already had one son. The mother, his 27-year-old girlfriend, has no other children.
Mom spent two months in the hospital on bed rest before the birth, which involved a team of about two dozen health care professionals who "practiced" for the birth for two months. The five babies, born at 28 weeks, all weigh less than 2.5 pounds and will be in the NICU for at least two more months.
This couple is welfare. Although tax money will pay for all of heir hospital bills and health care and supply them with food stamps and cash assistance, the cost of having five babies is more than their welfare check will ever be able to handle. They will need cribs, clothes, diapers, formula, food, a car, car seats, larger living quarters and miscellaneous items to care for their children.
The mother has not allowed her face to be photographed and the father gave only brief comments to the press the day of the birth, so it is possible that they are illegal immigrants (they both have Latino surnames.) They have refused to talk to the press, so I have no idea if they are trying to hide something.
But, if you are a real Pro-Lifer and want to help this couple to deal with the consequences of their decision to give birth, you can send cards and donations to:
Mendoza Quints
c/o Lancaster General Hospital
555 N. Duke St.
Lancaster
PA 17601

reply from: Hereforareason

Wow!! Natural quintuplets! That is amazing! Oh what a blessing. (Yes I know that is a lot of work, pain and money as well)
I hope they do eventually let their story be published. That would be wonderful. People love to help out families in need that are still working hard.
(I Do hope that they aren't hiding anything. Hopefully they just want their privacy.)
Amber

reply from: MoonLady

They could probably make money if they sell their story to TV show and movie people - BUT, the extra income would cause them to lose all their welfare benefits, including health care. It truly is an amazing birth, as most multiples nowadays are the result of IVF and other fertility treatments.
I, too, hope they are not hiding anything and are simply overwhelmed, as anyone would be. The local people would really like to see at least a photo of the quints together with their parents and I'm sure there will be local efforts to help them out with baby care and errands. But they are going to need all the help them can get.

reply from: AshMarie88

Spinwiddy, why do you keep talking like every pro-life man is a "dead beat dad"?
You might wanna look at all the pro-choice men who leave the women they have sex with and get pregnant because they don't want to be dads, they just want sex!

reply from: AshMarie88

Do you even have any sources for these claims you are making?

reply from: MoonLady

OK, we've got conflicting information. The local news (TV) reported that they did NOT use fertility treatments. I cannot get into the Lancaster Online archives because I don't want to pay, but I have the morning paper from that day at home and will check it tonight.
If they really had fertility treatments even though they were unmarried and on welfare, I as a taxpayer will be extremely ANGRY. If you cannot afford children, you have no right to have taxpaying citizens PAY for your quest to give birth.
The father's name is Miguel Pena. Look it up if you wish. So will I!

reply from: yoda

Just curious here, if this couple needs help, why make it about them being "PL", and why address your request to other Pro-Lifers? Are you giving Pro-Choicers a free pass on this one? Are you saying that PCers would've aborted those babies, so they need not feel any responsibility to help?
Why make someone's needs a political issue?

reply from: MoonLady

It is addressed to Pro-Lifers because they are the ones who encourage women to give birth even if the woman cannot afford to have a baby. Pro-Choicers encourage use of birth control to prevent pregnancies among women who cannot afford or do not wish to have children. They also believe in having the option of abortion should birth control fail or should the parent(s) be unable to care for the pregnancy and child.
If it is true that welfare paid for this unmarried couple to have fertility assistance, I am going to make a big fuss and see that this practice is discontinued. If it is really a natural birth, I will contribute to the family materially and financially.

reply from: Hereforareason

I thought "Pro-choicers" encouraged a womans right to choose. Your comments are not "Pro-choice", it is Pro-abortion.
Amber

reply from: MoonLady

"I thought "Pro-choicers" encouraged a womans right to choose. Your comments are not "Pro-choice", it is Pro-abortion."
Along with the RIGHT to choose comes the RESPONSIBILITY to do what is right for your family and society in general. The use of birth control when having premarital sex is responsible. Waiting to have your children until AFTER marriage is responsible. Spending you OWN money on fertility treatments is responsible.
I am NOT saying that the mother should have had an abortion. I believe they should have been RESPONSIBLE and gotten married first, waited until they were financially ready to have children and spent their OWN money if they wanted to get pregnant.
What this couple did is atrocious. The father works at a barbershop (definitely not a fancy salon where he earns lots of money.) The mother already has one child from a prior unwed pregnancy. The mother is on welfare/medical assistance - and I have a source at the welfare office who verified that to be true! Why should they have been allowed to get pregnant on the taxpayer's dime? Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for this extremely expensive pregnancy, delivery and the care of these premature babies who are very prone to lifelong health problems?
I am really upset about this because my husband, two adult sons and I all work fulltime jobs but NONE of us has ANY medical insurance. I am a two-time cancer survivor and cannot even afford my regular checkups. I can barely afford the medications I have to take to live a normal, productive life. And welfare recipients are getting fertitily shots and having quintuplets? How screwed up is this?
Some PL people here call women who are Pro-Choice or who have abortions "skanks" and other names. What do you call this unmarried welfare-collecting couple - a whore and a male slut? Two horny idiots who can't control themselves? I'd love to hear an answer that THAT question!

reply from: Hereforareason

Responsibility isn't taught by the "pro-choice" movement. Choice is. The right to do what you want when.
Responsibility would have been to have waited until able to provide, then married to have sex.
hm, really? Isn't that what you would have told her when she found out how many babies she was having?
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the abortions of innocent babies because people are taught by planned parenthood to have fun without responsibility?
In my opinion there were a lot of poor choices this couple made. However, at least now they have 5 healthy babies instead of 5 dead babies.
Amber

reply from: bradensmommy

I dunno about anyone else but I'm a huge supporter of WIC and it helps tremendously! I am on it(since I'm pregnant) and so is my son. Welfare should be only temporarily.
I would rather my money go to something to help people instead of killing them.

reply from: MoonLady

Sorry, but Pro-Choice DOES teach responsibility, not "fun without risks" or whatever drivel you seem to think. That is why birth control is SO VERY important if you are unmarried and having sex.
This couple CHOSE to cause a pregnancy which resulted in five babies, not one. Because it was their choice to get pregnant, they should be responsible for the results.
As for this quote, "In my opinion there were a lot of poor choices this couple made. However, at least now they have 5 healthy babies instead of 5 dead babies." No, they do NOT have 5 healthy babies. They have five sick, premature, 28-week babies who are in the intensive care unit and will be for two months. It may take years to find out what physical or mental disabilities were caused by their early birth. Only time will tell.

reply from: yoda

You mean as opposed to killing the babies before birth? And being in opposition to babykilling makes us MORE obligated than proaborts to help families in trouble? Wow, what a standard........ so if we're opposed to child abuse, then we are more obligated than proaborts to help abused children?
So THAT means that AFTER the babies are born, proaborts have NO obligation to help families in need? Wow.... what an easy way to remove all your obligations to help the needy! By your standard, proaborts have NO obligation to help anyone...... since they encourage abortion for all needy families..... right?
Why? Aren't you a proabort? Didn't you get rid of all your obligations by encouraging abortions for all poor people?

reply from: yoda

And here I thought you didn't approve of name-calling....... and now you're encouraging more of it.

reply from: yoda

"Pro-Choice" doesn't teach anything, period. It simply means someone favors the availability of legal abortion, PERIOD. Look it up.
At least they did not kill five babies. That's one very GOOD choice.

reply from: MoonLady

"And here I thought you didn't approve of name-calling....... and now you're encouraging more of it."
OK - I'll rewrite part of the O.P. so it sounds like one of the name-callers wrote it:
"A pro-life slut with a bastard child, living in sin with one of her many partners, got knocked up deliberately by her uncontrollably horny boyfriend. Instead of one more bastard baby, they ended up with FIVE little pro-life future sluts. They are on welfare, but that's just fine because they chose life, not abortion. But it's all wonderful and us pro-life taxpayers don't mind paying millions of dollars to take care of these skanks and whores as long as they don't have abortions and kill their little bastard babies."
Do you like that better? And yes, I think that by encouraging birth control and abortion for people who are unmarried and too poor to take care of themselves, I should be relieved of the responsibility for these morons. Unfortunately, as a taxpayer, I can't make that decision. But now that I know this was a deliberate pregnancy for these welfare cheats, NO, I am not donating a darn thing to them. They'll qualify for even better public housing and more food stamps now that they have all those kids.

reply from: yoda

"Name caller(s)"??? Who's the other one? ........................ So, this is your way of "discouraging" name-calling? By trying to outdo the name-caller(s)?
Okay...... so by advocating the killing of unborn babies, you get to dump all your responsibility to the poor....... very interesting! I know one guy who posts on another forum that 4/5ths of the population of the world should be killed off RIGHT NOW..... does that relieve him of all responsibility to everyone?
Yeah, I really like this........ I can advocate that everyone who is needy ought to kill themselves, so I won't be obligated to help anyone!!
Wow....... what a system!!

reply from: AshMarie88

You're getting warmer...
Of course, they should be responsible for the "results". Every couple should be responsible for their "results". I'm glad you see our side of it!

reply from: AshMarie88

OH OH! Did you guys even notice that Moon was calling the woman who birthed her babies a "slut"? But I doubt that she would call a woman who would KILL her baby then go have some more "fun" a "slut".

reply from: Hereforareason

"And yes, I think that by encouraging birth control and abortion for people who are unmarried and too poor to take care of themselves, I should be relieved of the responsibility for these morons."
Why not have a late abortion performed on the whole family? And all of the other families on welfare. Then you wouldn't have to pay for them.........But you would have a bunch of blood on your hands.
Amber

reply from: MoonLady

Ashley - "OH OH! Did you guys even notice that Moon was calling the woman who birthed her babies a "slut"?"
Honey, if you don't know sarcasm when you see it, you better learn what it is. I normally do NOT call ANYONE names, but there is a certain person here who does nothing but call names, so I sarcasticly re-wrote the O.P. with words he would understand.
Got it now??
A slut/skank/whore is a woman who gives herself sexually without thought of her marital status or of the possible repercussions of her actions. (Oh, dear, I just described the mother of the quints, didn't I????????)
You got a better name for a single woman with one bastard who deliberately gets pregnant at the taxpayers' expense and goes on to have not one, but FIVE, welfare-dependent babies that she and her "boyfriend" are unable to care for?

reply from: MoonLady

"Why not have a late abortion performed on the whole family? And all of the other families on welfare."
Nope, they are already born, so it's too late. But the very least we could do is keep them from breeding indiscriminately by refusing to pay for fertility treatments.
Good grief, there are millions of WORKING people who don't even have medical insurance. Can't we help them FIRST and take care of extra babies for welfare moms later?

reply from: AshMarie88

You don't know her situation or her, so judging like that isn't right.
Also, calling children what you just did isn't right either.

reply from: yoda

Oh NO, it's NEVER too late to do the RIGHT THING! Just start a campaign to legalize the killing of all welfare recipients, and stack the Supreme Court with justices who'll go along with you!
It's NOT illegal to campaign for it! So, if you think it's the right thing/moral, go for it!

reply from: yoda

Does sound a little judgmental, doesn't it?
But you know, I'm really starting to like this "I'm not responsible because I wanted you dead" principle....... can you imagine a proabort looking at a group of hungry children and saying "I have no responsibility to help you, even if you STARVE TO DEATH, because I wanted you killed before you were born!"
Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside????

reply from: BabyDell

Yes, if they would allow it, a fund could be set up for them and yield lots of help, even help with taking care of the babies when they come home. A relative of a relative of mine had quads. Caring for them after they came home from the hospital was an enormous job, greatly alleviated by caring volunteers.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

That was moonlady.
OH OH OH AND HERE IS A GOOD ON!
Guess who that was?
Only the loveable friendly founder of Planned Parenthood.
Aka Margaret Sanger.
I think Margaret and Moonlady and kindred spirits.
Moonlady, Do you consider the 5 children part of sangers catagory of the 'unfit' ?
Do you believe that mother shouldn't be able to reproduce?
Do you believe stopping her from reproducing will ease up on your tax dollars?
You have already stated all those things..
I'm glad to see margaret has survived the generations.

reply from: Hereforareason

It's too late? So when did they turn into human beings that shouldn't be killed? Was it the instant they were born?
Amber

reply from: AshMarie88

And since when were human beings animals? People don't "breed", they reproduce.
Dogs "breed", people don't.

reply from: bradensmommy

I thought those words were the same or similar meaning?
Did you know the only other mammal other than humans to have sex for pleasure are dolphins? And they aren't aborting, as far as I know!

reply from: AshMarie88

Dolphins and a type of monkey almost no one has heard of.
But "breed" sounds so, I don't know, inhumane or something. Almost sounds like it's calling people dogs.

reply from: MoonLady

"But "breed" sounds so, I don't know, inhumane or something. Almost sounds like it's calling people dogs."
They had artificial help to get pregnant and DID have a litter, after all. It is not normal for humans to have five babies at one time. It's normal for dogs, though.
As for helping them, the situation is unique in this area. There has NEVER been a disaster, fire, accident, multiple birth, sick child or any other time when someone needed help that our community failed to hold fundraisers, give donations of time, items and money or otherwise help the people in need. This time, there is NOTHING. No fund, no help, no nothing. There hasn't even been a single word in the local media about the babies since the day they were born.
Something is not right and people seem to know that. Maybe it's because they're not married. Maybe it's because they're on welfare. Maybe it's because they're Latino, but I doubt it - but not even the local Latino community or Spanish Catholic church has spoken out about any kind of organized help.

reply from: yoda

So now you're calling those kids "morons"? My, what a kind heart you have........
And you're willing to look those kids directly in the face and say to them...... "You kids can starve to death for all I care, I will NOT help you one bit, because I wanted your Mom to kill you before you were born!"
Can you really do that?

reply from: MoonLady

"So now you're calling those kids "morons"? My, what a kind heart you have........ "
Nope, the PARENTS are the morons. They just couldn't wait until they were married and financially stable to get pregnant. Who will pay for their stupidity? Those five children, of course. Bet they won't even be able to buy school uniforms for them when the time comes.

reply from: faithman

So now you're calling those kids "morons"? My, what a kind heart you have........
And you're willing to look those kids directly in the face and say to them...... "You kids can starve to death for all I care, I will NOT help you one bit, because I wanted your Mom to kill you before you were born!"
Can you really do that?
Well ole margy sanger felt that way. She believed one of the biggest scurges on civilization was christian charity. She thaught that the best thing a poor family could do for their children was kill them. It doesn't supprise we in the least that this ole dried up middle aged heartless skank believes the same thing.

reply from: MoonLady

"She thaught that the best thing a poor family could do for their children was kill them."
That may be Ms. Sanger's opinion, but I think the best thing a poor family can do for their children is WAIT until they can afford children to have them. What is the point in bringing a baby into a family that cannot even take care of itself? Are they expecting magic or what?

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

The Catholic church doesn't have to inform the media about how they choose to help someone...The Catholic church doesn't look for praise,Unlike the Pro-choicers who like pats on the back for their good deeds.Not to mention the media only reports what makes the Church look bad.
Funny thing.
You didn't respond to all my quotes from Sanger and their striking resembalence to quotes of yours.
Any reason in specific?
Or did I just kind of state the obvious.
For Christ I Stand,
Keith

reply from: MoonLady

So, you are saying that it is acceptable and moral and fine with you that people who are NOT married and cannot afford to take care of themselves should have sex and make babies without being responsible?
If a poor woman is raped and gets pregnant and has a baby, I believe that we should support her and her child. If a family has children and becomes poor, OF COURSE we should help them. But why encourage (by acceptance) poor unwed mothers to have children they can't afford? What is wrong with helping them to limit their family size by giving them free birth control? It's a lot cheaper than pregnancy and childbirth and raising children and they can always have children LATER when they can take care of them without help from the government.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

I'm not saying its acceptable, moral, or fine with me.
But as much as I am against sex before marriage, or against people having children when they aren't ready...
I look at it this way.
forget your stance on abortion.
Forget morality.
Forget everything.
Think about the happy face of one small child who just made a friend.
That friend cost him no money. Friendship is free.
Now he is gone, he was aborted because his parents were poor and couldn't afford him. Or he wouldn't have been living comfortably.
Some of the greatest people have been born into poor/abusive families.
Not only is it unfair to kill that poor innocent child because his parents mistakes or financial situation, but that child should have the right to make what he can of his own life.
If you think because a mother is poor, has many children all with sicknesses and diseases, and is pregnant its okay to abort..then you just aborted bach.
This whole debate comes down to one thing.
Just one.
Is that child a person.
Does he/she deserve to live.
I Like nick cannons "Can I live" music video.
It makes a good point.
Above everything else, think about the children we are killing.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

And you have YET to respond to my point that your statements are pretty dang smiliar to Sangers.
do you, or do you not agree with her.
It seems from everything you have been saying, that you completely agree with her.
and why are your statements so dang smiliar to hers if you don't agree with her?

reply from: yoda

And who will MAKE the kids pay? YOU will, of course, because you've already ABSOLVED yourself of any responsibility to help such families because you WANTED them to KILL their kids before birth!!
Come on, tell us how you would stand in front of those kids and say I HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP YOU BECAUSE I WANTED YOUR PARENTS TO KILL YOU... SO YOU CAN ALL STARVE TO DEATH AND I WON'T HELP YOU!!
Come on, tell us how you'd make that speech!!

reply from: faithman

And who will MAKE the kids pay? YOU will, of course, because you've already ABSOLVED yourself of any responsibility to help such families because you WANTED them to KILL their kids before birth!!
Come on, tell us how you would stand in front of those kids and say I HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP YOU BECAUSE I WANTED YOUR PARENTS TO KILL YOU... SO YOU CAN ALL STARVE TO DEATH AND I WON'T HELP YOU!!
Come on, tell us how you'd make that speech!!
Just like most pro-death skanks, they are to cowaredly to do the deed themselves, they get the goverment, or assasins like Planned Parenthood, to do their dirty work. Hitler didn't actually kill jews, he just ordered it done. Dried up old skanks just talk murder, then leave the doing of it to others.

reply from: pookiy1980

Why is abortion even mentioned here? The woman had this procedure done to get her preg. so why are surpised that she "choose" life? Of course she would!!
Beyond the abortion discussion, I do not think this couple should have intentionally got preg. knowing they did not have any funds to provide for the child/children. They were already on gvt assistance how is birthing another (or5) going to make things better? They knew their situation before they had the procedure done.
It would be different if they were not trying to be preg. they were using some kind of BC since they knew they could not afford a child right then then yes I would happy they chose life for the baby but this is not the case. I do not think she should have aborted by any means just should have waited until they were financially stable like a responsible person would do.
Now with all the babies they will probably have to both stay at home to care for them and geez there wil probably even be less income for them and the poor babies...

reply from: pookiy1980

because you WANTED them to KILL their kids before birth!!
Why would they kill the babies of an intentional pregnency??
Moonlady are you saying it was irresponsible of them in their situation to become (purposely) preg. ? or are you also saying that after the intentional preg. they should have aborted?

reply from: pookiy1980

I'm not saying its acceptable, moral, or fine with me.
But as much as I am against sex before marriage, or against people having children when they aren't ready...
I look at it this way.
forget your stance on abortion.
Forget morality.
Forget everything.
Think about the happy face of one small child who just made a friend.
That friend cost him no money. Friendship is free.
Now he is gone, he was aborted because his parents were poor and couldn't afford him. Or he wouldn't have been living comfortably.
if they could not afford him they should not have purposely got preg.
If this was an accadental preg. then you are right the child should not have to pay with their life.
agreed but again this was on purpose. bach?? is he a product of fertility drugs? or a normal preg. that his mother accepted responsibility for?
I agree with all you have wrote but this is not the situation here this was not an opsy preg. where she was deciding on abortion or life, it was on purpose...HUGE difference.

reply from: yoda

As I have quoted her several times, she has stated that she feels NO OBLIGATION to help any family in need because they can't feed their children.... because she supports killing babies before they are born!
Here are her exact words: "And yes, I think that by encouraging birth control and abortion for people who are unmarried and too poor to take care of themselves, I should be relieved of the responsibility for these morons. ."
And now she will not address the fact that her attitude could, if shared by enough other proaborts, cause the death by starvation of such children.
Quite a lovely attitude, eh?

reply from: pookiy1980

As I have quoted her several times, she has stated that she feels NO OBLIGATION to help any family in need because they can't feed their children.... because she supports killing babies before they are born!
Here are her exact words: "And yes, I think that by encouraging birth control and abortion for people who are unmarried and too poor to take care of themselves, I should be relieved of the responsibility for these morons. ."
And now she will not address the fact that her attitude could, if shared by enough other proaborts, cause the death by starvation of such children.
Quite a lovely attitude, eh?
Ok so this really has nothing to do with the babies in the origional topic right?
Just the fact that she does not want to have to take care of someone else's kids who had them and can not afford them. I do not think she wants the kids to die or suffer from starvation....
This is where birth control and education come into play.
The whole goverment health care is a joke so many people who do not need it are waisting funds for people who really do need it.
So a question to all:
Do you think it is right for a poor couple(not even married!!) to undergo fertility drugs and intentionally get preg. and expect the gvt to pay their bills?
I guess it would be like a person on welfare and gvt housing going to get a new Hummer, they know they can not afford it!!

reply from: yoda

Woah.......... hold on there a minute!
NOTHING was said about her "taking care of" someone else's kids!! She simply stated that she felt NO OBLIGATION to help that family BECAUSE she was PROABORT!!
AND if she feels NO obligation to that family, and other proaborts feels the same way..... then the charities that those families depend upon may not be able to keep those kids alive! AND SHE KNOWS THAT!
SO while you're bending over backwards to defend her, remember that she is saying that NO PROABORT has any "obligation" to help needy families nor hungry children!!
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT????

reply from: proliferalltheway

Well--It was NOT the smartest thing for this couple to be given fertility drugs while on welfare. Actually, their welfare people NEED to re-think giving FREE fertility drugs to people on welfare. I have friends who have the PERFECT home life for a child--NOT living on ANY welfare, and their health insurance does NOT even cover for fertility drugs.
Even if no one on this site comes out to help this family with money--not to worry--I am SURE once the big name baby companies get wind of the story, they will ALL be coming out to give them LOTS of FREE STUFF!!!

reply from: pookiy1980

Woah.......... hold on there a minute!
NOTHING was said about her "taking care of" someone else's kids!! She simply stated that she felt NO OBLIGATION to help that family BECAUSE she was PROABORT!!
AND if she feels NO obligation to that family, and other proaborts feels the same way..... then the charities that those families depend upon may not be able to keep those kids alive! AND SHE KNOWS THAT!
SO while you're bending over backwards to defend her, remember that she is saying that NO PROABORT has any "obligation" to help needy families nor hungry children!!
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT????
What I met was by taxes exc. not personally raising them. The charities and gvt our taxes will be helping to keep those kids alive....no objections here I would much rather see my money going to a needy familiy then to PP for abortions......

Bending over backwards?? Nope trying to get what abortion and a poor couple who intentially have kids have to do with eachother.
Do I agree with it?? we like it or not we have an obligation to pay our taxes in turn pays to help these needly families and hungry children. If I had the money to help pay for someone elses kids I would or I would have my own but I don't.
I am not saying screw the kids by any means they are products of a couple who was not using their heads.
I can not afford a kid right now there for I do not go out and intentionally have them that is the whole point.

reply from: pookiy1980

Thank you my point exactly....
Agree Oprah will help em...I think they need help on money management and common sence so when their children grow up they can teach them they have to be on welfare and don't have to depend on others to care for their families.
You don't buy a new car you can not afford and expect others to pay for it right??

reply from: MoonLady

"Why would they kill the babies of an intentional pregnency??
Moonlady are you saying it was irresponsible of them in their situation to become (purposely) preg. ? or are you also saying that after the intentional preg. they should have aborted? "
I have NEVER said that I thought the woman should have had an abortion. I DID say (repeatedly) that deliberately getting pregnant with the help of fertility drugs while on welfare and unmarried is extremely irresponsible.
While I may be pro-choice, I would NEVER advise or encourage ANYONE to have an abortion. I wholeheartedly support ADOPTION as the best alternative for a woman who is too poor, immature or physically/mentally unable to bring a child into the world and keep it.
Abortion should be a last resort and BIRTH CONTROL is, IMHO, the best way to prevent accidental pregnancies.
Unfortunately, there is a large group of pro-lifers who believe that most forms of birth control are forms of abortion, and I disagree with that completely. Now that B.C. is widely available and can be obtained cheaply or even free through groupls like Planned Parenthood, I think that the responsible thing for fertile women who do not want children at the present time to do is to use the most effective types of
B.C. available or even use two methods simultaneously.
Abortion should NEVER be used in place of birth control. And it should not be used to for "convenience." I support the availability of abortion for cases where two or three doctors agree that it would be in the best interest of the woman, especially if she already has a living child or children who need her.
Yes, I have had one abortion. My husband and I agonized over the decision because not only would the pregnancy and birth cause me severe physical and mental consequences, but even if the baby and I both survived, I would have had a severe setback due to my illness (which was diagnosed before I realized I was pregnant.) The pregnancy was the result of birth control failure (the method I used was taken off the market because of too many failures.) I was taking not just one, but FOUR different prescription drugs which have ALL been proven to cause serious birth defects, miscarriage and stillbirth.
I wanted that baby. I knew it my heart that it would have been the daughter I always wanted. But I owed it to myself to stay alive and healthy for the sake of my other children.
God understands, I know that. What I did was not a sin in His eyes. I could not leave my young sons motherless for the sake of birthing (if it came to that point) a baby would have serious health problems that I would not be able to deal with due to my own illness. How could I do that to my husband and children? I could not, and I will never regret my decision.
As for the quintuplets, I hope they are healthy and live long and wonderful lives. It's just too bad that our tax dollars have been and will be used to support babies that should have never been conceived in the first place. Sorry if I sound bitter, but I have worked and paid taxes for 35 years and never collected anything other than a few months of unemployment compensation. I cannot even get free medical care for myself (no medical insurance since last June) even though I have survived cancer twice, cancer that was not from anything I did wrong (like smoking or drinking) but from getting sunburned too often back in the old days before sunblock was invented. I spend $400 a month for prescriptions for my other medical problem and that doesn't leave a whole lot for my other expenses.
Regarding Ms. Sanger, I think the quotations posted here are reprehensible. I do not believe in killing poor people and I do believe that "Christian charity" is the right thing to do. I know little about Ms. Sanger's beliefs, but from what was quoted her, I think it's safe to say that I disagree with her for the most part.
I have nothing personal against the pro-life movement. My mother, siblings, husband and even my own children are pro-life. (Yes, my husband went against his beliefs because he loves me and cared more about me and our children than about a 7-8 week-old fetus.)
But I know women who have been left damaged or sterile from complications of childbirth and, in the last several months, two area women have actually DIED from childbirth complications. Pregnancy and giving birth can be dangerous, and if a woman knows in advance that her life will be in danger if she continues her pregnancy, I believe she has the right to sacrifice her unborn to save her own life.
Please, if you are truly pro-life, there are so many people out there (especially women and children) who need help to survive. The courts will continue to decide the fate of legal abortion without regard to protestors, sermons, "truth trucks" and other PL methods of being heard. VOTE. Keep voting. Support the candidates who believe as you do if you really want to make things change. Work to change the "Culture of Sex" so prevalent in our society - porn, internet sex, disgusting videos and music, lingerie ads on TV and all the other nudity and sexual shenanigans that the media has brought into our homes. Work to make people realize that sex is something sacred to be shared by married couples, not a hobby for teenagers and college students.
I'm very sorry for the long post. I was laid off from my job yesterday and my son's computer at home died, so I will be using a computer at the local library ten miles from home for a few weeks. I'm sure most of you won't miss me. I just hope I gave you a few things to think about. You are, for the most part, very interesting, convicted and intelligent people and I will miss you.

reply from: yoda

Apparently I haven't made my question clear enough, so I'll ask it again:
Do you agree that JUST being a proabort relieves a person of ALL OBLIGATION AND/OR RESPONSIBILITY towards those families in need of assistance?
Does that give them a free pass to ignore needy families?
Does ANYONE reading this forum understand this question, or does no one here understand plain English?

reply from: pookiy1980

Ok I did not think you met that people cherry pick quotes and all and I wanted to be clear. I totally agree about the irresponsibility of this couple.
Thank you for your personal post. I know it will get criticized like everything else that is not "sugar coated in a pretty box" but you are being honest with your feeling on the issue and I hope others can accept your honesty.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but YOU will not feel ANY OBLIGATION to them, will you?
Your position as a "prochoicer"/"proabort" relieves you of all responsibility and/or obligation to help such families, right?

reply from: pookiy1980

Apparently I haven't made my question clear enough, so I'll ask it again:
Do you agree that JUST being a proabort relieves a person of ALL OBLIGATION AND/OR RESPONSIBILITY towards those families in need of assistance?
Does that give them a free pass to ignore needy families?
no
can you answer my question?
"Do you think it is right for a poor couple(not even married!!) to undergo fertility drugs and intentionally get preg. and expect the gvt to pay their bills? "

reply from: pookiy1980

Ah, but YOU will not feel ANY OBLIGATION to them, will you?
Your position as a "prochoicer"/"proabort" relieves you of all responsibility and/or obligation to help such families, right?
Do you feel obligation to pay for a welfare couple's new hummer?? I mean they need a car right??

reply from: yoda

FINALLY AN ANSWER!! THANK YOU!!
Why did that take so long, and why are you so reluctant to disagree with Moonlady?
Of course not.
But how does that justify turning a cold shoulder to the INNOCENT KIDS????
What have the kids done to deserve such an attitude as Moonlady's??
Do you not think that it's a horrible attitude to punish the kids for what their parents have done??

reply from: yoda

Do hummers have a heartbeat? Are they made of flesh and blood?
How can you compare an automobile to flesh and blood children???
How can a person's being "prochoice" excuse them from ALL RESPONSIBILITY to needy children??????

reply from: pookiy1980

FINALLY AN ANSWER!! THANK YOU!!
Why did that take so long, and why are you so reluctant to disagree with Moonlady?
Of course not.
But how does that justify turning a cold shoulder to the INNOCENT KIDS????
What have the kids done to deserve such an attitude as Moonlady's??
Do you not think that it's a horrible attitude to punish the kids for what their parents have done??
Diddo finally an answer from you. Geez I get the run aroud here like the "proaborts give me"
Yes the kids are innocent, and yes it is a horrible attitude to punish the kids for the foolish parents no doubt.

reply from: pookiy1980

Do hummers have a heartbeat? Are they made of flesh and blood?
How can you compare an automobile to flesh and blood children???
How can a person's being "prochoice" excuse them from ALL RESPONSIBILITY to needy children??????
Ugh p-lease it is the concept!! Do not buy/create something on purpose you can not afford then go and expect others to pay for it.
A person being PC does not excuse them.

reply from: Teresa18

The problem with your statement is that the womb child is just as much her living child and a child that needs her as her born child. The child within the womb is just younger and therefore smaller. You would never advise one to kill their infant just because it may in some way be in the best interest of their two year old child. The same that is true for that infant is true for the womb child.
I won't get into God's view of your decision. First of all, I'll say that the complications from abortion can and include death. In a situation as yours, the Catholic Church, which I am a member of, advises a woman to carry the child as far as possible. If the woman gets very ill, and in the course of treating her the child passes away, that is unfortunate but necessary to save the woman. It's also not fair to kill a child because they may be unhealthy. You would never kill a born person due to health issues, and the child within the womb is just as much of a person as a born person.

reply from: yoda

Concept schmoncept! I'm talking specifically about the couple that already has all those kids, and it's too late for lectures! The kids are here!
But, according to our resident "prochoice spokesperson", all prochoicers are "excused" from supporting such a family in any way, no matter what.... no matter how hungry the kids get!
What a copout! What a horrible attitude! And I though prolifers were supposed to be the ones who were "cold-hearted" towards those already born? NOOOO, it seems that prochoicers outdo us in the cold heart department!

reply from: pookiy1980

I agree 100% the babies are already here. I guess we all got off topic and what better choices this "couple" should have took.
We will see what she has to say then...

reply from: faithman

Concept schmoncept! I'm talking specifically about the couple that already has all those kids, and it's too late for lectures! The kids are here!
But, according to our resident "prochoice spokesperson", all prochoicers are "excused" from supporting such a family in any way, no matter what.... no matter how hungry the kids get!
What a copout! What a horrible attitude! And I though prolifers were supposed to be the ones who were "cold-hearted" towards those already born? NOOOO, it seems that prochoicers outdo us in the cold heart department!
Ain't that something? They don't want to be forced to pay for poor kids, but don't have the least bit of a problem that tax payers are being forced to pay for abortion. So much for Choice!!!! The only ones who have the right of choice are pro-death skanks.

reply from: yoda

Well it's been three days, and not another peep out of her on the subject so far....

reply from: MoonLady

Hello, I'm back - got lucky and was only laid off for two days.
"But, according to our resident "prochoice spokesperson", all prochoicers are "excused" from supporting such a family in any way, no matter what.... no matter how hungry the kids get!"
I have no CHOICE in whether or not to support them. I pay state, federal and local taxes (income, real estate, sales, etc. etc.) so part of my money has been helping this family for a while now.
Would I give them money? No, I can't afford it. I'm still trying to pay medical bills because the welfare dept. won't pay them for me. Would I baby sit? No, they live 30 miles away and I can barely afford the gas to get to and from work. Would I donate baby clothes? Yes, but unfortunately I gave them all away over 20 years ago - same with all other baby items. Would I give them food? I do - I donate to the local food bank. Would I give them housing? Sorry, I don't have room in my small house.
What sort of support do you think I should give them other than prayer? I'd love to hear feasible ideas.
For the other poster who is Catholic - I'm not Catholic and never have been. If I was, it would have been an entirely different situation and my choice might have been to follow Church teachings.

reply from: FaithWithoutWorksIsDead

can you tell me what I said that you just responded to?
I think its admirable that you would follow the teachings of the Church if you were in it. I'll pray for that day.
my comments were mostly to Bmom because she was stating all sorts of lies about the Catholic church.

reply from: yoda

Why? Didn't you say that you should be "excused" from any responsibility to help "such people"?
The how and how much isn't what is at issue here, it's your statement that you should be "excused" from any responsibility towards helping "such families" SOLELY because you are prochoice........
Have you forgotten that statement already....... or are you trying to forget it?

reply from: MoonLady

Re: My non-Catholic beliefs - I was responding to Teresa18.
"Why? Didn't you say that you should be "excused" from any responsibility to help "such people"? "
By "such people" I was talking about unmarried "skanks" on welfare who got free fertility treatments (excuse me, they werent free, you and I paid for that) and are now going to support their family of seven with MORE of our taxes. Heck, could they have even afforded ONE baby?
Had they been MARRIED and EMPLOYED, not living on the dole, I would have helped the minute those babies were born. Let someone else take care of the slothful, reckless and irresponsible who live off the government and can't wait until they are self-sufficient to make babies.

reply from: pookiy1980

I (not being the PC person yoda is speaking of) can not afford to have my own kids so I can not personally support others.
I am not saying anything about obligation because it is the truth rather we like it or not we support these families with our tax money. Would I like to keep the tax money I am giving to "these people"? Yes, then maybe I could afford to have my own kids. But as long as there are people in need out there then my tax money goes to them and I stand here not being able to have my own...these are not complaints just the way I see things. I am not willing to have kids knowing I can not support them and expect others to support them. I understand people who need these services those who can not work or do not have the education for a better paying job I have no objection helping them (as much as I can) but I just wish people would think before they "purposely" get into a situation they can not handle.
as far as obligation I think we do have one to the kids, they did not ask to be put into the situation they were put into they should not suffer one bit...I would say the best thing is education and birth controll but since we paid for the fertility tx then I don't know what to say......

reply from: yoda

So you SHOULD be relieved of any responsibility towards such families BECAUSE you are prochoice? EVEN IF they are starving to death?

reply from: MoonLady

If the family was KICKED OFF welfare because the father got a decent job and they still needed help, YES, I would help them - because at least they would be TRYING.
Personally, I think the babies should go into foster care until the family situation is suitable for them to go home. You wouldn't allow this couple to ADOPT a child, would you??????? Maybe we need a system to investigate prospective parents as if they were going to ADOPT before they would be permitted to have a child.
Yeah, I'm gonna catch it for saying that. Don't care. They let anyone have babies but if you want to adopt, it takes applications, investigations, interviews, financial statements, etc. etc. etc. Why not the same for natural children????

reply from: Teresa18

Whoa! Do you realize that would completely destroy our freedom in this country? Every person would be FORCED to be on birth control and children would be taken from their parents and given to the state if they had financial difficulties. With the way things are going politically, they literally may also take children if they are being raised to think in a way the state disagrees with (happening in other countries) such as conservative Christians. America would be a horrifying place!
The only person that I've read comments from similar would be Margaret Sanger. She had the same sort of idea. You should read some of your comments because this is the second or third one that has sounded like her.
On a side note, thank you for answering my remarks regarding Catholicism in a kind manner. Many people are very intolerant or disrespectful of Christians.

reply from: yoda

Still avoiding the question, I see. Well, I'll repeat for you:
Do you still stand by this statement? "Originally posted by: MoonLady: And yes, I think that by encouraging birth control and abortion for people who are unmarried and too poor to take care of themselves, I should be relieved of the responsibility for these morons."
Do you still claim you SHOULD be relieved of the RESPONSIBILITY for "these morons" solely because you are PROCHOICE????

reply from: MoonLady

Teresa - "I think its admirable that you would follow the teachings of the Church if you were in it. I'll pray for that day."
Thank you so much for your kind comments and your prayers. I am somewhat familiar with most major religions and Catholicism has always been a faith I am drawn to. Many times I have gone to Mass alone or with Catholic friends and family because the services are everything that my natal church was not - ritual, color, incense, vestments, pageantry (for lack of a better word), history and sense of family.
I was born into over 300 years of ancestry in Anabaptist religions (Mennonite, Church of the Brethren, Church of God) and saved and baptized therein. As much as I admire and am attracted to Catholicism, there are three major obstacles that I doubt I could ever overcome - infant baptism, the patriarchal hierarchy of the Church and confession to an intermediary rather than directly to Christ.
In the meantime, I will continue to live up to my position as godmother to my brother's younger daughter (he married a Catholic woman but did not convert) and, should anything ever happen to her parents, I will not deviate from my promise to ensure that she continues to be raised in the Church and remain a good Catholic.
Thank you again for your kindness and caring. I wish you the best.

reply from: faithman

la di da! strike up the violens. The baby killing skank pretends to have a heart.

reply from: yoda

And this is being posted in the very thread in which she told us prolifers about a "PL family" that needs help...... but NOT help from prochoicers..... (because they should be relieved of all responsibility to PL families, of course).
Now you know that proaborts can't be bothered helping a PL family in need, no matter whether the kids are starving, the dog is dying, or whatever is going on...... they didn't abort when she wanted them to, so to hell with them!!
We prolifers must save the whole world, Rick, because the proaborts are not going to lift a darn finger to help such families... they have already been "relieved of their responsibility" by advocating baby killing for everybody.
Didn't you know that?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics