>Exactly why is it monstrous for immature teenage mothers to be
>encouraged to put their babies up for adoption where they can be
>raised in two parent homes with more mature people? I think it is
>idiotic for a teenage girl to think she is doing the best thing
>for her child (or herself) by trying to raise it without a father.
>Our prisons are filled with kids who come from single parent
>homes.Check the statistics. To encourage single teen mothers to
>keep their kids is bad social policy.
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net (none)>
>Sounds like a good idea to me too; I can't imagine why anyone
>would think that offering young mothers this option was a bad
>thing in any way. Now I do understand why some people would
>have a problem with the "pregnancy counseling clinics" set up
>by fundies that only counsel what the church approves of--that
>is being less than honest. But if such an organization clearly
>acknowledges its religious affiliation, more power to them.
>It's not as if clinics like Planned Parenthood don't also have
>a strong religious bias--though pragmatism isn't generally
>recognized as the religious doctrine it is.
DEF <exploit> 2. to make unethical use of for ones own profit.
The problem is that absolutely no concern is for the mother, their
only purpose is to get their hands on the baby. the prospective
adoptive parents are well-to-do contributers to the church.
Unethical,explotative, and IMMHO monstrous.
As I've already pointed out, the refusal of so called pro-life
groups to support birth control points clearly at their primary
goal.
Women are not property, nor are they "Axolotl tanks".
Brian
Member,Extropy Institute