Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pro Lifers support teenage pregnancy?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
glen123098 Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:23 PM
Original message
Pro Lifers support teenage pregnancy?
"HumanLifeAwareness" said the following on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=GbZJYWjkAPo

"Having a child at 16 isn't just a "good thing" its natural and wonderful.

Girls have often and continue to start having children shortly after being able to.

The USA was built on teen pregnancy. Get the hell over it. "


This is one of the nuttiest things I have ever read. Is this a mainstream pro life position? Are pro lifers gonna start talking about how wonderful teenage pregnancy is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. They're as delusional as octomom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, I imagine it has its uses.
All fundies want their girls and women subjugated and under the control of the men. Breeding, in or out of wedlock, helps achieve that.

(1) The "purity" clique wants girls to be virgins until they marry, but nothing is said about how old they should be when they marry.

(2) Once "given" by her father to her husband, a virginal female is still considered a man's subordinate, to be used for breeding and serving him.

(3) IF an unwed young woman becomes pregnant, there is also the benefit of using guilt as a tool to keep her dependent and submissive. She's a "sinner" then, with a lifetime duty to her child(ren) and any man who will support them.

They're not "pro-lifers" -- they're anti-choicers, who believe women have no rights, and deserve no choices or life independent of what the patriarchy bestows on them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. also unwed pregnant teens make great breeders for infertile Good Christian(tm) couples
Edited on Tue Dec-01-09 10:25 PM by Shallah Kali
:sarcasm:

Shotgun Adoption
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/joyce

When Jordan arrived, a counselor began asking whether she'd considered adoption and talking about the poverty rates of single mothers. Over five counseling sessions, she convinced Jordan that adoption was a win-win situation: Jordan wouldn't "have death on her hands," her bills would be paid and the baby would go to a family of her choosing in an open adoption. She suggested Jordan move into one of Bethany's "shepherding family" homes, away from the influence of family and friends.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape, buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal abstinence and marriage-promotion funds. The National Abortion Federation estimates that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to "choose life" but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children.

Bethany guided Jordan through the Medicaid application process and in April moved her in with home-schooling parents outside Myrtle Beach. There, according to Jordan, the family referred to her as one of the agency's "birth mothers"--a term adoption agencies use for relinquishing mothers that many adoption reform advocates reject--although she hadn't yet agreed to adoption. "I felt like a walking uterus for the agency," says Jordan.

Jordan was isolated in the shepherding family's house; her only social contact was with the agency, which called her a "saint" for continuing her pregnancy but asked her to consider "what's best for the baby." "They come on really prolife: look at the baby, look at its heartbeat, don't kill it. Then, once you say you won't kill it, they ask, What can you give it? You have nothing to offer, but here's a family that goes on a cruise every year."

Jordan was given scrapbooks full of letters and photos from hopeful adoptive parents hoping to stand out among the estimated 150 couples for every available baby. Today the "birthmother letters" are on Bethany's website: 500 couples who pay $14,500 to $25,500 for a domestic infant adoption, vying for mothers' attention with profuse praise of their "selflessness" and descriptions of the lifestyle they can offer.

Jordan selected a couple, and when she went into labor, they attended the birth, along with her counselor and shepherding mother. The next day, the counselor said that fully open adoptions weren't legal in South Carolina, so Jordan wouldn't receive identifying information on the adoptive parents. Jordan cried all day and didn't think she could relinquish the baby. She called her shepherding parents and asked if she could bring the baby home. They refused, chastising Jordan sharply. The counselor told the couple Jordan was having second thoughts and brought them, sobbing, into her recovery room. The counselor warned Jordan that if she persisted, she'd end up homeless and lose the baby anyway.

"My options were to leave the hospital walking, with no money," says Jordan. "Or here's a couple with Pottery Barn furniture. You sacrifice yourself, not knowing it will leave an impact on you and your child for life."

The next morning, Jordan was rushed through signing relinquishment papers by a busy, on-duty nurse serving as notary public. As soon as she'd signed, the couple left with the baby, and Jordan was taken home without being discharged. The shepherding family was celebrating and asked why Jordan wouldn't stop crying. Five days later, she used her last $50 to buy a Greyhound ticket to Greenville, where she struggled for weeks to reach a Bethany post-adoption counselor as her milk came in and she rapidly lost more than fifty pounds in her grief.

When Jordan called Bethany's statewide headquarters one night, her shepherding mother answered, responding coldly to Jordan's lament. "You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock," she told Jordan. "You have no right to grieve for this baby."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-02-09 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Make that #4 on the list.
A very valid item that I overlooked.

And while my brain cells are still functioning, a #5 has occurred to me: Should an unmarried, pregnant young woman not submit herself to bearing her child under the righteous direction of her "godly" betters, and should she seek a secret abortion, and should she die as a result, then that simply rids the world of one more incorrigible, ungodly sinner, which is just the way fundies would like things to be; additionally, any pain she suffers as a result is just punishment for her unwillingness to submit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. You are absolutely correct
They are also the biggest cheerleaders of Abortion, both safe and unsafe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-01-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. But if those 16 year olds are poor, there are at least some DUers who will agree with that position.
And accuse you of being for eugenics for having the temerity to suggest that it's not such a great idea for them to have kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC