Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I'm sorry but I think that *she* is making her life a mess.  A friend
    of mine cares very deeply for a lady who is 24 and has 4 children.
    She was married at 19 and had 2 kids by the time she divorced at
    21.  Since her divorce she's had 2 more kids.  I once talked to
    her and she was telling me how she was so sad about what she did
    to her life (this was before child #4 - guess she wasn't too sad).
    
    And it makes me sick to see how unhealthy these kids look while
    she spends in excess of $100 per month to keep her pet pony - and
    to see her buying make-up.  
    
    The tax payers are the ones paying for this and the kids are the
    ones hurting from her mistakes.
                                                
    Hope this doesn't happen to your friend a third time...
    

    Bill,
    
    Hasn't Lynne ever heard of the term BIRTH CONTROL?
    
    My God, I read this in total disbelief.  What's wrong with this
    woman that after FIVE abortions she doesn't know enough to use
    a little prevention, Come on!!  She should have known better after
    the first abortion, let alone the fifth.  And then she gets 
    pregnant two more times.  MAMA MIA!!
    
    Like my mother always said, "You made your bed, now lie in it".
    
    If I feel bad for anyone here it's you.  Your hurting because
    you care so much about her.  I'm sorry, but I still feel she
    should have known better.
    
    Just my opinion, but I'm interested in reading others.
    
    Donna
    

    	It doesn't seem very fair to me to see this woman's life
    	revealed (with the subsequent judgments) in a forum where
    	she cannot defend herself.
    
    	From the perspective of the author of the basenote, I can
    	sympathize with his feelings, but I'm bothered very much
    	by the idea of putting the woman on trial in the process
    	of trying to address Bill's feelings.
    
    	Is it really necessary for us to judge and gossip about
    	this woman in this particular notesfile (or in any
    	notesfile in DEC?)  Honestly?

    marge,
    
    i'm not sure how to read your note (.4). to me, it points out how
    this woman has used abortion (given the limited facts that we have),
    but it doesn't necessarily constitute a trend. That is, it doesn't
    point out how _everyone_ uses abortion. or did i miss something?
    
    liz

    Re .4, but, Marge, don't you think that this woman's case is rare?
     I mean, I hope it is.  I am very pro-choice but  *not* as a
    replacement for birth control.  I would hope that situations like
    this are rare.  I don't think that most women (who might need an
    abortion once in a life time) should be denied the right to choice
    because of exceptional cases such as this woman.
    
    But, as Suzanne mentioned, it does seem cruel for everyone to jump
    in and condemn her. 
    
    Lorna
    

    May we get back to the base note and try to answer what
    Bill asked?
    
    Bonnie
    feeling moderatorish

    While I agree that, based on what evidence we have, Lynn may not be
    the most sensible woman in the world, that, to me, is irrelevant to
    the question of whether or not John should support his children.
    
    But if some are knocking Lynn, look at John!  Here's a woman whom
    he (presumably) knows has gotten pregnant multiple times, at least
    once by him, and he has sex with her again without supplying any
    "protection"?  Incredible!  
    
    The old saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on
    me" could apply here.  However, as I have stated in other forums,
    I believe that a man is 100% responsible for contraception.  And
    so is a woman.  If John knew Lynn well enough to have sex with her
    the first time, he should have been bright enough to realize that
    he needed to "protect his interests", so to speak.  That he didn't
    is a discredit to him.
    
    Thus, my position is that John is obligated to share the costs of
    supporting his children by Lynn.  That he "didn't want" the
    second one is irrelevant.  Even if he DID use protection (and it
    somehow "failed"), he's STILL responsible.  That's the risk he
    accepts when he has sex with a woman.
    
    
    				Steve

    
    
    re 10   Steve,  I agree with you.  Both the mother and the father
            are responsible for these children.  Each one should 
            contribute both financially and emotionally to the children.
            I think it is unfair that the father only sees his children
            when it is conveneint for him.  Think of the effect on the
            kids.
    
    re 4    Marge,  I also do not want to make this another note on
            abortion, but I would like to comment.  It would seem
            that the only form of birth control this woman knew
            was abortion. It would also seem that "abortion was
            being used as a replacement for good judgement and self
            control" BY HER.  Abortion is an individual situation
            with each situation being totally different than any other.
            I don't feel it is correct to make a blanket statement
            on abortion that would pertain to all women.
    
            Also getting an abortion is in NO WAY "setting things right".
            There are no rights and wrongs when an unwanted pregnancy
            occurs.  The only right and wrongs are the decisions the
            pregnant woman and potential father feel are right for
            them and the unborn child.
    
    Michele

    The man who helped to create those two children is responsible for
    helping to support them.  Conversely, he also must be given an
    opportunity to involve himself in his children's lives in some way. If
    I were a friend of Lynn, I would advise her to seek legal help to
    insure that she gets the financial support she needs.  I think I
    would also advise her to find out about some medical options about
    birth control and give them serious consideration.  Finally, I would
    advise her to seek some professional assistance to help her sort out
    some feelings that I suspect will continue to cause her problems in the
    future.  No, she ain't crazy, but I think she does need to understand a
    few things about herself.   
    
    Mike

    Here I go:
    
    1)	Being basically pro-life (with exceptions being rape/incest/life-
    or-death) one abortion was bad enough.  But 5?  I guess it bothers
    me that my husband and I are having trouble conceiving just 1 and
    she is getting pregnant right and left (OK, so I'm jelous).
    
    2)  The father gets to me, too.  First of all cheating on his wife,
    second of all, not wanting to take his responsibility.  (Of course
    I am talking about child #2.)
    
    3)	The base note author seems to me a very kind person wanting
    to help a friend.  More people should have friends like him.
    
    Please don't flame me.  I am just stating my opinions, and I am
    a little down today anyway.  Since crying over spilled milk is useless,
    all I can say is that my best wishes go to the little ones, and
    I hope that the father can see clear to give, if not emotional support,
    financial.
    
    K.C.

    	RE:  .14
    
    	Although I am pro-choice, I can understand why you would have
    	feelings about having some trouble conceiving while someone
    	else has had so many pregnancies.  I don't blame you at all
    	for being affected by this story on a personal level
    	(because of things that are happening in your own life.)
    
    	You stated your feelings in a very reasonable way, and I
    	appreciate that.
    
    	Best wishes to you, K.C.
    

    After 5 abortions, the women should have known better.  I'm 
    pro-choice but this women embrasses me about my feelings 
    towards this.  Wasn't there any councelling during the abortions,
    didn't she listen???  
    
    After 5 abortions, the man should have known better.  And
    especially due to his circumstances (having a wife and another
    life and all) he should have assumed complete responsibility 
    since Lynn couldn't come to grips with it.
    
    About John not having to be responsibile about #2 because it
    wasn't his idea!!!  Hogwash.  He's responsible for his children
    whether their existance is convenient for him or not.
    
    Lynn should get 'permanent' (tying of tubes, or whatever) 
    birth control into her life.
    
    Anna
    

    I'm really amazed the man changed his mind and decided that she
    was right and he really wanted the child.  Why didn't he ask her
    if she was on the pill?  Why didn't he provide a condom?  Why didn't
    he say no - not without protection?  Why did he leave it up to her?
    He must have been aware of the consequences.  Maybe, subconsciously,
    he wanted her to bear his children.  I'd say that if she ever wants
    a career, she should consider and get counseling from family, friends,
    and clergy, on the possibility of putting the 2nd child up for adoption
    (perhaps even by the man and his wife, if she doesn't object). 
    By carrying the child to term and trying to raise it herself, knowing 
    the consequences it will bring her life, she may be sentencing herself
    needlessly.  I emphasize that I am only conjecturing, and my opinions
    mean diddly squat to this woman - who must make her own decisions
    based on her feelings and her motivations.
    
    I would say this woman should have learned after her first abortion.
    They often offer birth control advice and birth control devices/pills
    in conjunction with abortion services (they meaning clinics i.e.
    planned parenthood et al).  One woman I know has had to have two
    abortions.  I suspect she didn't take precautions because that might
    have made the sex seem pre-planned, or contrived in some way.  Some
    people feel guilty taking "the pill" (or similar long-term methods
    short of sterilization), because it means they are anticipating
    having sex (which may, to them, be a guilt-producing act, or an
    act of love that they feel should not be chemically or device-ally
    hampered in any way).  Often, they suffer from the belief that "It
    can't happen to me, I'm a nice person.  I couldn't get pregnant
    just from ONE time."  Surprise.  While some women have difficulty
    conceiving, some other women are really fertile myrtles, and once
    is all it takes.
    
    I believe, from the same US News and World Report article, that
    2 out of 5 abortions are being given to women who have had abortion
    before.  There is obviously something lacking in the birth control
    system (either in the dissemination of information, of supplies,
    or of attitude - i.e. it's okay to be prepared for sex - in fact
    it's *necessary* to be prepared if you wish to avoid getting pregnant).
    

    -Jody
    

    I agree with .16 (Anna) that this woman should have known better.
    But from the base note, I get the impression that she is not a
    responsible person, and may even have been attempting to entrap
    the (unwilling??) father.  (Granted, he's totally irresponsible
    as well, being married, yet still having sex with someone who he
    knows to be less than completely responsible.)
    
    But as to Anna's comment that he should have taken Complete
    responsibility, I disagree with that.  I would not be surprised
    if she intentionally told him that she was on the pill (or whatever)
    and that there was no possibility of her getting pregnant again.
    
    If we're keeping score, I would say it was Daddy 0, Mommy -1!  In
    any case, it's a sad situation.
    
    Jack (A right-to-chooser, but NOT a Pro-Irresponsibility-er)

    I'm concerned about this woman.  She obviously has low self-esteem. 
    She can't say no to this man that wants sex, can't say birth control
    is needed prior to sex, can't interrupt this mans desires because
    his feelings is more important that her life.
    
    To be unable to put her own feelings and decisions before several men's
    feelings tells me she has a lot of psychological baggage she is
    carrying.  Possibly some leftover unresolved feelings from a father or
    other significant male adult figure?  It looks like she is looking
    desparately for love and acceptance, and in unhealthy ways. 
    
    I suggest therapy/counseling for her so she may start taking control
    of her life, and gain acceptance through her own love for herself.
    She has to stop these destructive and painful patterns.
    
    Jean 

Marge has expressed dismay that because abortion is legal this
woman has used it for birth control and had 5 abortions.
I really don't think that this is the case.

I think that if abortion were not legal, this woman would now have
seven children. That is, if abortion were illegal, she STILL would
not use birth control because (based on the information given--obviously
I don't know this woman well enough to be certain about this) she at
some level (perhaps subconsciously) really wanted to become pregnant,
at least she felt that way at the time,
and therefore made no attempt to avoid becoming pregnant. Then, later
on, when she realized the predicament she was is (unmarried and pregnant),
she sort-of came to her senses and tried to do something about it, and had
an abortion. It really seems that she lives for the moment, and doesn't
want to think about future consequences.

I think this woman really needs counseling. It seems like she probably
has problems deeper than an ignorance about birth control.

Believe it or not, I know another woman like this. But she is only on
pregnancy number 2, and is like this about everything (like buy something
that uses up your entire paycheck, worry about food money another day.)

    I agree, this woman needs some counseling on matters other than
    just what kind of birth control to use.
    
    If she had 5 abortions, 2 full-term pregnancies, and possibly other
    pregnancies that miscarried (chances of some of those are good),
    it looks to me that this woman has some deep-seated need to become
    pregnant/become a mother.  It also seems she lives for the moment
    as well as not doing too well for herself career wise - thus, can't
    *afford* to have/raise a lot of children alone, and probably also
    has some serious self-esteem issues.
    
    The father of the 2 children should have thought first as well -
    brought a condom/foam to reduce the possibility of her becoming
    pregnant - especially with #2 - he *knew* this woman did not take
    adequate precautions then.             
    
    But, this man *does* have moral and legal responsibility to his
    children.  She should see a lawyer to get child support for both
    children in a legally enforcable court order, or, if everyone is
    willing, have him and his wife adopt #2 and him still help support
    #1 over-the-table.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .0
    
    Permit me to say that as a friend, you sound like a treasure, Bill.
    How fortunate this woman is to have someone like you to turn too
    in times of pain.  It's been my experience that when you ache for
    someone else, you endure the pain twice--once for the other person
    and once for yourself because it makes you feel so helpless and
    inadequate.  I just want to let you know I admire you.
    
    Warm Thoughts-
    Barb

    I just read through the basenote and the replies with mixed
    reactions.  The basenote evoked a feeling of deep sadness for
    this woman.  As some of the previous commentors have said, she is
    in serious need of some counseling to understand why she allows
    herself to repeatedly get pregnant.
    
    My reaction to many of the replies was "My, can't we be judgemental/
    uncharitable!"  There are many things that I've done over the course
    of my life that were irresponsible at best and it wasn't until I
    had some therapy that I understood what compelled me - inspite of
    my best intentions - to behave in those ways.  While I don't agree
    with the behaviors discussed in this note,  I certainly don't feel
    I have the right to condemn the woman for them.
    
    As to the child support issue - I would recommend that she go after
    a Uniform Reciprocal Support order for both children.  That way
    the courts would enforce the child support and make sure that she
    got it.

    If this woman does not have access to money for a lawyer, the DA's
    office will do the legal work, since it appears that she will probably
    need ADC to help with the kids (since she is so low paid), food
    stamps, HUD.  social Services would be someone she needs to talk
    to, soon......
    they would also be able to help her get councling.
    
    vivian

    It was odd, reading this.  My cousin, who is not yet thirty, is
    pregnant with her sixth child.  She's never been married.  She had
    her first at about 16-17, I think.  The first four were from a
    relationship, the fifth from a rape by the father of the first four,
    and I have no idea where the sixth is coming from.  I hear about
    this second-hand, from my mother.
    
    She's a bright woman (and a bright girl when she started out), she
    was planning on being a nurse, for goodness sakes, and now she's
    busy taking care of children.  Her mother gives them a lot of support.
    (My aunt and uncle have been divorced every since I was a small
    child, so I don't know if her father is doing anything.)  My own
    mother is annoyed, to say the least, at the extra burden this is
    placing on my aunt.  My grandmother, being very traditional, is
    naturally upset and confused.  Myself, I just can't understand it.
    The only thing I can think of is that she's too Catholic to use
    birth control.  It's just so weird to realize that someone would
    let this happen to her life.
    
    Anyway, as far as father's rights go, I figure they get both the
    rights and the responsibilities; ceding their rights doesn't mean
    they get to cede their responsibilities.  It's harsh, I know, but
    I can't think of a better or more fair way to handle it.  I still
    think eggs are the way to go.

    re: .25
    
    >Anyway, as far as father's rights go, I figure they get both the rights
    >and the responsibilities; ceding their rights doesn't mean they get to
    >cede their responsibilities.  It's harsh, I know, but I can't think of
    >a better or more fair way to handle it.  I still think eggs are the way
    >to go. 

    Right on!  
    
    That entire paragraph says it all for me.  (Including the part about
    the eggs!)
    
    Mike 

	 Well, I'll do my part...Since these women are having so many
	 children, I just won't have any...that way I've done my part
	 to slow population growth!


	 Seriously, though...I just can't comprehend someone who
	 brings a child into a life of poverty...whether married or
	 not... my sister is about to have her second child within a
	 year of the first one...i wouldn't doubt that she will go on
	 and have more...and their family is definately under the
	 poverty level...

         I don't understand!!!!  Can someone bring child after child
         into a world where these children are going to have struggle
         to survive in?

	 

GALLOP:

	My parents were quite poor - how poor could result in a
lot of rat holes about who was poorer than whom, what is poverty,
etc.  Suffice it to say, my father worked three very menial jobs
(my mother didn't work because she was an alcoholic).  We
lived in public housing (a Boston housing project) and every
one of us children had jobs by the time we were in our teens.

	There were drug problems (yes, drugs were around in the
'40s and '50s) and stints in reform school for one of us.

	Our parents never expected any of their children to
attend college and sure as hell didn't have the funds to
assist with same.

	One could bring your argument against my parents -
Why did they bring children into lives of poverty? - but:

	.  Four of five children graduated from college, one
	   with a PHD, two with advanced degrees

	.  All five of the children are gainfully employed

	   .  one is in senior management with NYNEX
	   .  one is a middle level manager in DEC
	   .  one is self employed
	   .  one is a manager with Cooper Tire
	   .  one is a Discaled Carmalite Priest

	Average family income of the four not in religious life
is somewhere around $60K. (Three of the four wives work outside
the home.)

	Two of us have had our ups and downs with marriage, two
have been happily married for 20 + years.  Collectively we have
six children (all of whom save one will attend college at the
expense of their parents) and two grand-children.

	None of us have broken the law, save for minor motor
vehicle violations, as adults.

	Four of us are very involved with community activities.

	My parents certainly made a mistake bringing children into
a poor family!

	Your socio-economic position should not be a major factor 
when deciding to have children, in my opinion.  I believe you should 
determine if you want children, why you want them, if you have the
love in your heart the children will need, etc.

	Strange, to me, this '80s financial hang-up.  Love and
good values will, in my opinion, always suffice in the long run.

Douglas

    Re .28, I think it is very dangerous to tell poor, uneducated people
    that "love will suffice" (people have different ideas of love, too).
     It sounds as though your family were both very lucky and very
    motivated to succeed.  I think it's great that you're all doing
    so well.  But, in our overcrowded world, the fact that your family
    is doing well is not reason enough to advocate that poor people
    go out and have a lot of babies.  Perhaps one reason many of us
    are so "money conscious" is that we compare the price of what we
    have to buy and pay for with what we earn and wonder how the heck
    we could support 5 kids with today's cost of living!!
    
    Your father chose to work 3 jobs.  That was his business.  Many
    people would rather work one job and have 1,2, or no kids and that's
    there business.
    
   You must know that for every child from your background who succeeds
    in life there must be dozens who don't.
    
    Lorna
    

>>>>GALLOP:

	 First of all, it Gallup, no Gallop; I'm not a horse...


	 I was touched by your story....  I wasn't saying there was
	 anything wrong with bringing children into a very poor
	 environment.  Although, I know I could not do it...  Love and
	 good values, yes, will go along way, but I would have a major
	 problem with bringing a child into a world where I know that
	 they would have to struggle just to survive, let a alone ever
	 get to college and get a degree that by the time they are
	 grown up they will NEED to get a decent job.

	 I have a lot of admiration for your family...I think, though,
	 that your family was lucky...things don't always turn out
	 this rosey for a lot of families.  Maybe I'm in a minority or
	 something, but it would just be very hard for me to bring a
	 child into a world where I could not give that child at least
	 the chance at life where they would not have to struggle
	 every day just to survive.

	 I guess I don't understand...they show these homeless people
	 in Colorado on the news every once in awhile and I see these
	 families living on the streets, no food, very little
	 clothing, etc--yet the woman is pregnant with her 5th or 6th
	 or 7th child...

	 this is all off the topic of the basenote...maybe we ought to
	 get back to that...

	 kath

    Back to Bill...
    
    To reiterate what has been said in several notes already, your friend
    is *very* lucky to have a friend like you.  It occurs to me that
    you are in a position to be a good friend/influence to her children
    also.  
    
    She has allowed herself to get into the situation she's in,
    but her children have had no choice.  I'm not saying that their
    lives are miserable, as you said that she's a very good mother.
    But judging just by the bit you've written about her here, she
    doesn't sound the *stablest* person I can think of; and Father sounds
    like he's pretty much out of the picture altogether now.  I'm
    certainly not advocating that you play "surrogate father" to her
    children or help support them financially, but just be a friend
    and maybe a "stabilizing" influence in their lives.  Judging by
    the caring tone of your note, you are more that qualified to do
    that.
    
    It's an awful feeling to be helpless when a friend is hurting. 
    But remember, your friend *did* have choices about whether or not
    to become pregnant.  While some pregnancies are legitimately accidental
    (i.e., occur in spite of correct use of birth control), your friend's
    could probably have been prevented with minimal effort.  Please
    try to keep in perspective that while her situation *is* unfortunate,
    it's of her own creation.  (did that sound very pompous? didn't
    mean it that way)  It's not your responsibility to "fix" it.
    
    Lastly, your note said that she seemed happier to you now than before
    she had her first child.  Her situation doesn't sound much like
    the current popular version of "the good life", but who's to judge?
    If *she* is not basically unhappy and her children are well cared
    for (I'm saying *if*, being unsure whether those things are true),
    then does it really matter how you, I, or the other noters find her
    situation?  (i keep thinking this sounds pompous - again, i *really*
    don't mean it that way - just objective)  Personally, I'm a firm
    believer in "No one is a failure who is enjoying her life."
    
    Well, Bill, I've rambled on for quite a while here, but the original
    thought was:  We could all use more friends like you.  Try to keep
    it in perspective, but don't stop caring - it's wonderful to know
    there are people who do!
    
                        ...Lisa V...
                 
    

    I'm deeply  upset by the arguments in the last few notes that only
    people  who  are well off should have children. (See my note in V1
    about  the "Birth Dearth".) First of all I find it classist in the
    extreme.  Secondly I worry about the sort of social engineering it
    leads   to.   (Poor   women   were  sometimes  forced  to  undergo
    sterilization in *this* century.)

    The thing  that  bothers  me  the  most  is  that  I don't know of
    anything  more important than having kids. The only time I've ever
    known  my  father  to display emotion was when my brother told him
    that  my  sister-in-law  was  pregnant.  (Not  my  dropping out of
    college,  not  my  going back to college, not any of us graduating
    from  college,  but the idea of a grandchild. And this in a family
    that  values  education  above  almost  everything  else.)  Having
    children  is  no  longer useful economically, so every one who has
    children makes financial sacrifices for them. I can't fault anyone
    for having children whether they can "afford" them or not. There's
    a  strong drive to reproduce and I wouldn't deny anyone the chance
    to do so.

    These arguments  about  being able to afford children strike me as
    the  ultimate in yuppiedom. The woman in question here can support
    her  children.  She can't give them expensive toys, but it doesn't
    sound  as  if they're starving either. They're probably better off
    with a loving mother than a rich family that throws toys at them. 

--David

Sorry if I didn't express this well, but I'm still upset by this.

    David,
    
    As the mother of five children (and who would have gladly
    adopted more) thanks.
    
    Bonnie

�    I'm deeply  upset by the arguments in the last few notes that only
�    people  who  are well off should have children. 

	 And I am deeply upset and hurt that you so grossly
	 misunderstood me.  Do you happen to know the meaning of the
	 words "I do not understand"?  Thank you for twisting my
	 words, maybe you should read more carefully next time.
	 
�    These arguments  about  being able to afford children strike me as
�    the  ultimate in yuppiedom. 

	 I, personally have no desire to have any children, and I HATE
	 it when people tell me I will change my mind...I would like
	 to see the statistics, though, of children from very poor
	 homes that "survive" and achieve the kind of life where they
	 do not have to struggle to survive (do not read more into
	 that statement than there is), as opposed to those that end up
	 struggling for the rest of their lives...
	 
�Sorry if I didn't express this well, but I'm still upset by this.

	 And I'm upset that you would think I would say something as
	 crass as that...  I was making the comment today to someone
	 that I have just come into the "real world".  I've learned
	 more in the past year since college about life than I ever
	 knew.  Call me na�ve or something, but PLEASE TELL ME the
	 rationale behind bringing a child into a world where that
	 child will have to go through hell, and struggle and maybe
	 ... if that child is severely lucky ... be able to make a
	 place for themselves in life--a place where they are not
	 having to worry every day whether they are going to eat or
	 not.  Tell me the rationale behind having 6,7 or 8 or more
	 children and bringing them into a world where they don't even
	 have any shelter, any clothes...at least none to speak of....

	 Yes, I know...love...but doesn't love consist of wanting the
	 very best for someone (the best you can provide, or course)
	 and not subjecting them to pain and suffering to survive?

	 

    Re .32, people have a "right" to have kids and a responsibility
    to take care of them.  I don't think people have a right to keep
    having kids that they may not be able to take care of.
    
    I wouldn't say that poor people (poor is relative too) shouldn't
    have kids but that they should limit the children they have to one
    or two.  That way the kids have a chance of still having a few things
    in life.  My parents were poor in the sense that my father never
    had a high paying job (but always had a job) and they felt they
    could only afford to have two children.  Looking back, I'm very
    glad they were ahead of their time for working class people in regard
    to birth control, because I don't know what we would have done if
    there had been 5 or 6 kids in the family.  There just wouldn't have
    been enough to go around.  As it was, we always had decent clothes,
    a comfortable, but very modest, house, toys, books, and Christmas and
    birthday presents.  But, even then, there was no money for college,
    for big wedding gifts or a big wedding, no money to give me for
    my first car.  I never had a TV, or stereo until I bought them myself.
     Heck, I even bought my first 10-speed bike, to say nothing of my
    first car.  When your parents never went to college, and they tell
    you they have no money to put towards college, and that as soon
    as you get that high school diploma they expect board money from
    you, and you're not an A student, well....sometimes you never get
    to college at all.
    
    David, I'm not saying this to be a wise-ass, honestly, but have
    you ever *been* poor?
    
    Lorna
    

    David-
    
     You say that a woman has an "absolute right" to have children.
    Does this mean that as a country we have the responsibility of taking
    care of these children? Or does the mother have that responsibility?
    What if she is simply irresponsible? Now what happens if she continues
    to have children even though it can be shown that she is unable
    or unwilling to properly care for the children she already has.
    As a knee-jerk reaction, your argument does well. Upon further study
    of the issue, however, we find that the extreme position falls short
    of the mark.
    
    re: the base note
    
     It is unfortunate that this is not an unusual situation. 
    
     It is the responsibility of both partners jointly and separately
    to provide for birth control measures. The father was an idiot to
    rely on her to provide birth control given her track record. Either
    that or he was too unconcerned with the issue. Now he gets to pay
    for 18 years. "wanna play, gotta pay"
    
     The woman has emotional problems. I cannot respect a woman that
    relies on abortion for her method of birth control. There is simply
    no excuse to not use birth control. There are times when birth control
    methods fail; in these instances where a good attempt was made,
    an abortion may be a reasonable alternative. To have five abortions
    shows a fundamental flaw in character to me. "I can't think ahead
    so I'll follow the path of least resistance now." She is lucky to
    have a friend who cares about as much a Bill.
    
     Mark

Funny this discussion should come up just now...  I just received an 
announcement the other day from our Employee Activity Committee about a 
family they have decided to help at Christmas.  The story went something 
like...

Two policemen recently saw a couple of children going through trash cans 
looking for food.  They found some popcorn and proudly took it home to 
share with their family.  The policemen followed them and found a totally 
destitute family.  The father works (I believe) as a janitor for minimum 
wage or close to it.  They have 11 children.  They need *everything* -- 
furniture, clothing, food, you-name-it.

At this point in the memo I was starting to feel sad at the story, and 
thinking about what I could give to help these people out.

Then came the punch line.  The woman is pregnant.  Another baby is due any
day.  They have 11 children who are literally starving to death, and
they're about to bring another baby into the world.  Needless to say, I
chose another way to give to someone more needy than myself this Christmas.

I think it all boils down to taking responsibility for ourselves and for 
our own actions.  I do not believe people have the God-given right to bear 
children by the litter when I as a taxpayer have to pay for them.

							Pat

    re .32
    
    Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I couldn't
    possibly disagree more with this reply, namely
>         -< Having Children is an absolute right >-

    If anything separates homo sapiens from ordinary animals (and
    I frankly don't think anything does), it would be the ability
    to understand the consequences of our own actions. 
    
    Now, "rights" are abstract concepts, and there is always a lot
    of disagreement about what they are and from whence they are
    derived. I submit that *nobody* has the right to have children
    they cannot afford to raise, or to have more than two children
    that they *can* afford to raise. We're already on an awfully
    fast track towards living on a barren shell of a planet, and
    people having large families just accelerates the process.
    
    I have absolutely no sympathy for poor families struggling to
    support 5-10 children. (I *do* have sympathy for poor people
    struggling to support themselves.) If you (not addressed to anybody
    here!) can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think *more*
    people will be *easier* to feed? The problem is, a lot of people
    just don't *think*.
    
    Classist? I don't think so, unless it's classist to expect people
    to take responsibility for their own actions. Social engineering?
    Any form of education is social engineering, and without some
    significant changes in education, we're in big trouble.

    Another problem with the notion of "I should be able to have
    lots of children because I love children" is the greed factor.
    We can't all have what we want. I can say "I should be able to
    drive a Maserati because love Maseratis" - so when can I expect
    the taxpayers to buy me a Maserati?

    One of the aspects of life in countries where there is large scale
    famine is that many children are born.  It has been speculated that
    if famine endangers a population they recreate in greater numbers
    as a survival mechanism.
    
    One accomplishment in life that does not require a college level
    education or a high income, in fact, can be accomplished on no
    education and no income is the accomplishment of creating another
    life.  It is highly visible and recognizable.

    
>>    One accomplishment in life that does not require a college level
>>    education or a high income, in fact, can be accomplished on no
>>    education and no income is the accomplishment of creating another
>>    life.  It is highly visible and recognizable.

	 s�....very true...put another accomplishment with no
	 education and no income would be to use the money allotted by
	 the state to GET an education and to procure and income....

	 I would be much happier if my tax money went to getting these
	 people jobs and maybe an education so that they can become
	 self sufficient...but I am not happy about my tax money going
	 to support their desire to bring another life into this
	 already crowded world...

	 sure...a person has the right to have a child...as many as
	 they want, in fact...but that person does not have the right
	 to make me support that child....unfortunately this is one
	 problem with this wonderful (?) democracy of ours.....

	 8^(

	 

    Several people  have  taken  issue  with  me about a right to have
    children  arguing  that  such  a right is often abused. I find the
    abuse (of rights, not children) argument almost irrelevent. Rights
    exist  as  a concept because there are certain freedoms we wish to
    have  *knowing  that some people will abuse them*. All the debates
    about  rights, such as freedom of speech or to bear arms, have one
    group  trying  to deny a right because some small number of people
    abuse that right. The concept of "rights" exist to allow abuse. We
    say  that  everyone  has the right of free speech not to state the
    obvious,   but  as  a  policy  statement  that  we  will  tolerate
    considerable  abuse  of  that  right  because  there is more to be
    gained by tolerating abuse inorder to hear all opinions than there
    is by restricting speech so as not to offend anyone.

    Rights are  only  discussed when they are controversial. We didn't
    hear  about  the  "right" to breathe until air pollution became an
    issue.  It wasn't a right, it was something that we all assumed.

    In regard  to  bearing  children,  I  don't think any person since
    Solomon  was wise enough to determine who is a fit parent. How can
    we  enforce  limitations  on  who  can  have children? Require any
    pregnant woman to have an abortion if she can't demonstrate enough
    income  to  raise  the child? The Chinese have gotten a lot of bad
    press  by  requiring  abortions.  By sterilizing all poor women at
    puberty?  Suppose  they  later make money, then what? We have seen
    restrictions  on  who  could  have  children. In the 30's the U.S.
    Supreme  court  ruled  that "3 generations of idiots is enough" in
    allowing a state to involuntarily sterilize a woman. The "science"
    that  that  decision was based on is now considered laughable. The
    Nazis   had  laws  about  who  could  reproduce.  Since  any  such
    restrictions  are  worse  than  people  abusing  the right to have
    children, we must defend that right.

--David

    ps. Kathy  Gallup,  my earlier note was not meant to refer to your
    note, and I apologize for the unintended implication that it did.

>>>  -< Rights are meant to be abused >-


True...just don't forget for every "right" there is an opposing "right"...
not a "wrong"....


just as someone has the right to smoke..I have the right not to breathe that
smoke...

just as some women have the right to bear as many children as they desire,
I have the right to not be called on to support those children...


just as an observation..not directed at anyone or any note in particular....
I've noticed that people (in general...meaning all of us) tend to sometimes say
that those rights that are ours are RIGHT and opposing rights are WRONG....

catch-22 situation?