chrysostom

[ok doser]

It doesn't take a village in some cases...

i disagree - i believe that it does take a village, literally - the most effective, the only effective way to address irresponsible behavior by young adults is community pressure - pressure on the irresponsible young mothers, pressure on the irresponsible young fathers, pressure on the new grandparents - force support into the family instead of relying on it from "the (non-judgemental) government"

Judgemental goes a long way toward correcting bad behavior and poor choices, and nowhere is that more effective than from your peers, your neighbors, your family

and if the baby falls through the safety net and hits the ground? Charge the mother, the father, the grandparents with neglect and/or abuse - that's when government needs to get involved - and punish them harshly to send a message to others

 

[annabenedetti]

:AMR:

You asked a question, and I answered.

Well, I asked chrys a question.

You wanted to answer it too, that's fine. But that means you're kinda stuck with how I answered it.

You'd think that the doctor would be the one to catch the baby coming out of the mother's womb...

I don't know of many hospitals that have a "safety net" underneath the woman...

Rather, that would be the doctor dropping the baby, never a good thing.

The net isn't literal...

Where did I say that?

Huh?

Who's that?

Not that I care...

Well that was fun... :chuckle:

 

[chrysostom]

just think what you can do
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. Just do it. Do something. You can make a difference. First think. Think and do. Identify the problem. We are losing our values. Start with life. Start with the life of a child. Stop right there. We need to protect the life of the child. Once the child is protected, then and only then can we go on to climate change. Is that so hard to understand? So if your bishop starts talking about climate change, you know he can't be trusted.
Home

know your bishop
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. There are a few good bishops who have opted out of the CCHD aka the Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats. These bishops understand how the CCHD is actually helping the Democratic Party that supports abortion. If your bishop supports the CCHD, you should not be contributing to any of the churches in his diocese. That is not to say stop going to church. It is your church. Stay and fight for it. Just don't contribute to the corruption of our bishops. They know what is going on.
Home

 

[Lon]

i disagree - i believe that it does take a village, literally

I think there are some sentiments to that, but the opposite is home-schooling and keeping kids safe from the 'wrong' village.

On the flip side, I think it better if kids are socialized. My kids didn't need any 'scare' similar to Paul's statement that those who aren't lawless don't fear government or the law. :e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

the bishops' response
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. Here the bishops respond to the attacks on the CCHD aka the Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats. These bishops understand how the CCHD is actually helping the Democratic Party that supports abortion. The fact that some of the bishops don't see this as a charity but simply a way to fund political action groups is not addressed.
Home

 

[Arthur Brain]

:AMR:

You asked a question, and I answered. Not sure why you're answering it...



What safety net?

You'd think that the doctor would be the one to catch the baby coming out of the mother's womb...

I don't know of many hospitals that have a "safety net" underneath the woman...



:AMR:

Rather, that would be the doctor dropping the baby, never a good thing.

Ya know, it would be even better for the baby to not tax the parents out the nose out of the money they could use to support themselves and their newborn...



Where did I say that?



Huh?



Who's that? Looks like some random old dude.

Not that I care...

Uh, anna wasn't talking about some literal net to protect a baby from physically hitting the floor, she was talking about a "safety net" net that ensures that a baby is cared for after it's been born...

 

[JudgeRightly]

a "safety net" net that ensures that a baby is cared for after it's been born...

Why would that not be the parents?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would that not be the parents?

They're out of work and have no income because they're denied any benefits as per what you advocate? Have no family or neighbours willing or able to help out? What of the baby then?

 

[JudgeRightly]

They're out of work and have no income

Then maybe they should find a job, any job.

:think:

because they're denied any benefits as per what you advocate? Have no family or neighbours willing or able to help out? What of the baby then?

What of him or her?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then maybe they should find a job, any job.

:think:

Oh, because it's just that easy...what if they're unable to work, even temporarily? One would have to stay at home to raise the child as well, right?

What of him or her?

That's what I'm asking you. :AMR:

How is the baby going to get what it needs to ensure its well being if you deny provision for its parents?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, because it's just that easy...

:AMR:

what if they're unable to work, even temporarily?

Then they hopefully have money saved up that can carry them over until they can work again.

One would have to stay at home to raise the child as well, right?

That's how it used to be, and people managed just fine, but our current system requires a two-income household for people to be able to save money.

That's what I'm asking you. :AMR:

How is the baby going to get what it needs to ensure its well being if you deny provision for its parents?

Question begging.

You're assuming the baby won't be taken care of if there's no "safety net."

Parents can be pretty resourceful.

Hunger is a pretty strong motivator.

People have a right to fail. Not having a safety net teaches them to land on their feet, or at the least, how to break their fall on their own. Don't know if you've ever had kids, but there comes a point in their life when you stop trying to catch them when they start to fall, to teach them how to pick themselves back up again.

The same goes for finances.

If you teach people (AND their children, for that matter) that the government is always going to be there to catch you if you fall into financial trouble, and then help you get back on your feet, you'll start relying on them to do just that, and never go beyond that, because it's easy to just rely on the government for everything.

Which means that the government has to fund that somehow.

The easiest way to do that is to sharply increase taxes, which only puts unnecessary strain on the rest of society, who now has to shoulder the burden of providing for those who have learned to rely on the government's "safety net," and who aren't even grateful for it.

 

[ok doser]

Why would that not be the parents?

It should be the parents

 

[ok doser]

Then maybe they should find a job, any job.

Oh, because it's just that easy...

it really is, in President Trump's America - our unemployment rate is at a historic low

 

[JudgeRightly]

a "safety net" net that ensures that a baby is cared for after it's been born...

Why would that not be the parents?

They're out of work and have no income because they're denied any benefits as per what you advocate? Have no family or neighbours willing or able to help out?

It should be the parents

Arthur, You didn't actually answer my question, only presented a possible scenario that would be unfavorable, but not impossible, for the parents to manage taking care of the child.

So I ask again:

Why should the parents not be the safety net that ensures that a baby is cared for after he has been born?

In other words, why should it be some government program?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:AMR:

Not sure what's tripping you up. Jobs don't fall off trees and there's plenty of people willing to work who have to compete for employment.

Then they hopefully have money saved up that can carry them over until they can work again.

And if they don't or haven't been able to? Have you ever lived on the lower end of the ladder JR?

That's how it used to be, and people managed just fine, but our current system requires a two-income household for people to be able to save money.

Not all of them managed "just fine" JR. There's still plenty of households where one parent works and the other stays at home which is fine in itself if that works. Not all baby's are born into a traditional two parent paradigm so what of those who are raised by a single parent and its needs need to be met with aid not forthcoming from family, neighbours etc? That's the point here, not some "family ideal".

Question begging.

You're assuming the baby won't be taken care of if there's no "safety net."

Parents can be pretty resourceful.

Hunger is a pretty strong motivator.

People have a right to fail. Not having a safety net teaches them to land on their feet, or at the least, how to break their fall on their own. Don't know if you've ever had kids, but there comes a point in their life when you stop trying to catch them when they start to fall, to teach them how to pick themselves back up again.

No, it isn't question begging, it's actually staggeringly straightforward. If you deny the parent(s) of a baby any benefits or aid with expenses where it comes to the cost of raising one then right off the bat you are putting the life and health of a newborn at risk. I'm well aware of the costs that are incurred with responsibly raising a newborn and even without your admission to anna on another thread it's obvious just here that you most certainly aren't a parent.

How are these parents supposed to be "resourceful" where they're denied any income or aid? How is it going to help with the baby's immediate needs if they have no help? How are they going to get the bare minimum of essentials, diapers, formula, cot, pumps, clothes etc? How are they going to be able to get the baby injections or medical treatment when they have to be paid for?

The same goes for finances.

If you teach people (AND their children, for that matter) that the government is always going to be there to catch you if you fall into financial trouble, and then help you get back on your feet, you'll start relying on them to do just that, and never go beyond that, because it's easy to just rely on the government for everything.

Which means that the government has to fund that somehow.

The easiest way to do that is to sharply increase taxes, which only puts unnecessary strain on the rest of society, who now has to shoulder the burden of providing for those who have learned to rely on the government's "safety net," and who aren't even grateful for it.

This is just another arrogant diatribe that assumes that everyone subsisting on benefits is happy enough to remain that way and is not even the topic at hand. If you remove that "safety net" for parents with newborn babies who have no other means of income then you're only harming the baby. Else explain how the baby is going to have its essential needs provided for.

 

[ok doser]

the best safety net is a pair of loving parents who planned for the birth and are prepared to care for the child and nurture it, parents who have the support of friends and family

the worst safety net is a cold impersonal bureaucracy

 

[ok doser]

... why should it be some government program?

guess who artie works for

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur, You didn't actually answer my question, only presented a possible scenario that would be unfavorable, but not impossible, for the parents to manage taking care of the child.

So I ask again:

Why should the parents not be the safety net that ensures that a baby is cared for after he has been born?

In other words, why should it be some government program?

What? Of course you were answered and if you somehow missed it then you've been addressed in depth with my last response to you that should take care of any further "confusion".

In case it still isn't clear, then how is a parent who is denied any aid going to be able to purchase all of the essentials that a newborn needs and on an ongoing basis?

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

... how is a parent who is denied any aid going to be able to purchase all of the essentials that a newborn needs and on an ongoing basis?

they're going to sacrifice, just like any other young parent :duh:

 

[JudgeRightly]

guess who artie works for

Well aware of that fact.