Why are parents murdering their kids?

No, heavens, No! It's much better for us, the uninformed and the ignorant, to post these things, then argue about them until the thread finally dies of old age!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because you'd get an honest answer from people who've been programmed their whole lives to go "MMMM! SPROGLINGS!"

Talk to the people who were unplanned..."unwanted" might be a bit strong, but you definitely can see a difference between the way their families treat them and the way planned or decided upon children's families treat them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Horizantal and on his belly: Jesus took it up the ass.

 

Xev, have you had children?

I know this is personal question, and you don't have to answer, but was your personal experience as a child one of acceptance? I don't mean the question in the broad Freudian sense, I just wonder if it influenced your regard of parenthood.

I've never seen any difference, but then again I haven't grown up in a society where family planning has been stigmatized (I know this happens in largely Catholic environments, for intance). If I had to guess a difference, it would seem that unplanned children are more likely to be treated as spontaneous gifts, "happy accidents", while planned children are treated with a kind of calculated and controlling attitude. Once parents have successfully planned the exact date of their child's birth, they might think they can plan the rest of their child's life as well. But I've seen parents treat their unplanned children the same, so once again, it's just a guess.

 

No Jenyar, I have not had children, as I am 21 years old and a student in college. Now I realize that none of these things are common in your trailer-park, and I further realize that JEEEZUS does not want women to have lives outside their reproductive functions

(After all, says Paul, how else will those filthy creatures redeem themselves but by spewing children?)

but you see, I have access to these wonderful things called "critical thinking" and "technology" and thus I do not believe in the vengeful mutterings of dirty slaves.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying no, I do not have children.

I do plan on having a cute little abortion, though. I think it will be a girl....that would go nicely with the pinkish blood that will seep from my uterus.

Your question is stupid, not only because I was planned to the extreme - my mother tried to have children, could not and was considering medical aid in the process when I was concieved. Further, my point would not be invalidated by my personal experiences.

I've simply noticed a tension between unplanned children and their familes and like water, I've heard the "I'm unplanned" used as the simplest and most obvious answer to family tension.

 

There is no Christian in the world who believes that this passage (1 Tim. 2:15) means women are saved by childbirth, while men are saved by Christ. Nor are women "filthy creatures". The purpose of Paul's letter was to combat false teaching and affirm acceptable behaviour. Many people, including some of Jesus' disciples, thought it was better for people to remain unmarried because of the hardships, frustration and possibility of failure that come with it (Matt. 19:10). Others even forbid people to marry (1 Tim. 4:3), to "save" them from sin. (The pains of childbearing was held to be an indication of sin; Gen. 3:16). But Jesus said this is not always possible, and Paul affirms that women ("Eve") will experience salvation, just like men - who never experience childbirth - "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

That Paul didn't advocate what you think he does, is easy to prove:

1 Corinthians 7:8-10;28
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
...
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.​

Your personal experience can still be relevant, for if you weren't "better loved" or experienced less family tension than someone like me, who was unplanned (in the sense that my parents neither particularly planned to have me nor not have me), your point is moot.

The tension you noticed occurs in all families, and blaming it on a child's circumstances of birth is simply a sign of parental immaturity. Parents can't blame their children for a circumstance that was beyond their control, whether it is that they were planned or that they were unplanned. Referring to such circumstances would be an obvious attempt at self-justification for avoiding responsibility, and then the real question is whether any circumstances can justify a parent's lack of love, abuse, or even murder. Unless you believe in strict naturalism, like Asguard and Clockwork here, the answer can only be no.

The only way to make an argument that distinguishes between planned and unplanned children, is if you believe the distinction somehow justifies - and therefore may reasonably determine - parental abuse or apathy. Otherwise any abuse, lack of love, or "tension" based on this distinction, is no more improper than abuse based on any other unjustified, unreasonable, or arbitrary distinction - such as parents preferring sons over daughters, or blonde hair over brown. The child cannot be made to suffer for it, because he or she is ultimately just as human as they would have been under the most "ideal" and most pleasing circumstances.

 

I would not rely on that. Neither as a parent-to-be, nor as a child-to-be.

Annually, about 46 million times, the conceived child doesn't simply become wanted just because it was conceived. They abort it.

And then all the other children that are carried to term, but given away for adoption, or simply thrown away.

 

I agree that it is a sign of parental immaturity. Yet this immaturity is very real, with very real consequences both for the child as well as the parents.

This is why sex has to be taken seriously.

Yet, as it is, most people find it outrageous to think that one should have sex only if one wants children, or if one is prepared to have an abortion.

Contraceptives only cloud the issue. As they are not 100% safe, the decision about having children or not is the same with or without contraceptives.

 

The problem then is that they are unwanted, not that they are unplanned. It's obvious that not all unplanned children are unwanted, so that is not a determinant. Any further attempt to argue so would rely on the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Clearly it does not.

If there is a correlation, at best you might propose the hypothesis that parents who don't plan to have children are more likely not to want them. And then you must supply data to support this.

 

They might find it outrageous because there is third option: to always take responsibility for one's actions, even if the consequences are unforeseen. This is the option most people find reasonable, in the first place because they can't plan every consequence (total control of the future is an illusion), and in the second place because they believe that love is a responsibility that doesn't ask us if we feel like it. The latter doesn't allow a merely functional or naturalistic view of childbearing, and it will also govern the use of contraception or other methods of planning.

I agree: the decision about having children or not, is the same with or without contraceptives. And that's why contraceptives would not cloud the issue. A couple who are prepared to have children will not find themselves with an unwanted child, as if against their will, when contraception failed or was not even used. But a couple who do not want children under any circumstances (planned or unplanned) will enforce this wish on a child - either by abortion, abuse or some other form of rejection.

 

Ideally, this is true.

But how many people, while using contraceptives, think as they have sex, "Oh, maybe we will create a new life! How wonderful!"?

It's an absurd combination, one cannot fool oneself that way. One uses contraceptives with the hope that they will work, and conception will not occur. And while having sex solely for pleasure, one tries to push the idea of conception as far away as possible, and the only thoughts allowed to be present are that of pleasure.

I think such a mindset already takes away some of the perceived humanity that parents have for the possible child.

 

That depends on their beliefs and the context, not on the contraceptives. If they are married, the question of parentage and care would already have been addressed - at least if the marriage was in the Judeo-Christian tradition, since it declares their intention to love any child that should come from their union. If this promise to each other is eroded (or absent), then love - and the subsequent circumstances of their children and themselves - is already being eroded. The way a lie erodes trust.

This is certainly one possible avenue of thought. But do you think it's the only one?

It would.

 

Contraceptives cloud the issue because normally, they are used with the intention that they will work 100%.

 

Depending on what you consider is "normal". I know of nobody who holds such a misconception, and I can't imagine anybody willing themselves to hold such a hope against better knowledge. To do so would be irrational, and maybe that's the problem: that people act irrationally and irresponsibly. But then your objections are in line with those of the church and reasonable people everywhere.

 

No. Technically, a couple could say "We'll have sex, it's not that we don't want children, we just can't have very many, so we'll use contraceptives and try to have as much fun as we can."

However, I find it troublesome to put an end to this, where to draw the line. Say that a couple already has several children, and neither want nor can afford more -- what then? Would they accept to stop having sex? I strongly doubt that.


And there's another problem: Say that the contraceptives have worked so far, and then the woman suddenly conceives at age 45. The baby is likely to be severly damaged. What then?

 

snip snip

 

I know plenty of people who insist that 98% is to be treated as 100%. "Forget about those fears and enjoy yourself."

 

I know of no "technical couples". You might just as well say no couple who, while not using contraceptives, says "Well, since we are certain we will have a child, let's not have any fun at all". You are arguing extremes.

They might use contraceptives until the woman's menopause, after which biology takes over. Until then, the same principle applies: make love the highest principle. They can consult a physician or gynecologist for safe and viable options.

Whether the cause was contraceptives or German measles, they have to decide their responsibility. Since modern contraceptives dispense no more hormones than the body does naturally, such damage is more likely to be from other causes. I know of a couple who has opted to give birth to such a child, even though the doctors considered it dangerous for the mother. The child died after 8 weeks. This couple had never used contraceptives. What would you do?

 

Then they should be prepared to have that 2% bite them in the backside. It's irresponsible behaviour. Like ReignStorm said: you have to sleep in the bed you made.