ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you aren't a parent
so you're not a parent and he's not a parent
you're both on the same page
chrysostom
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
you aren't a parent
so you're not a parent and he's not a parent
you're both on the same page
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
buy cloth, wash them yourself
breastfeed
don't know "cot"
crib?
buy secondhand, craigslist, salvation army store, put a wanted post on the church bulletin board
babies are too young to wear pumps - get them sandals instead
are you kidding? :freak:
no, i guess you're not kidding
secondhand baby clothes are the cheapest thing going, at yard sales, auctions, salvation army stores, craigslist, church bulletin boards, etc.
that's not covered by your socialized medicine?
GET
A
JOB!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Tell ya what JR, let me fill you in on who I work for. It's a domiciliary care company and if you're not familiar with the term then google it.
You are the very thing that you are so eager to label other people as being, an absolute hypocrite. The "fact" that you are so seemingly aware of doesn't even exist but hey, don't let that get in the way of you enabling your little bud with his trolling.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
supported by government funding
i thought you were pretending to have me on ignore
Could even, if necessary, build one yourself with the necessary supplies, like a saw, hammer, nails, and wood.
As I said above, hunger is a pretty strong motivator, especially when it's your child that's hungry.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, presumes that every new or expecting parent has such supplies, could afford them or have the necessary skills to build such things. Also disregards the needs for sterility and immediate needs etc.
In the meantime a newborn baby is starving and it's requirements aren't being met because you're denying the baby any sort of aid that its parents can't meet.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it's obvious artie's not a parent, the market for secondhand stuff is huuuuge, because kids outgrow it so quickly and most parents don't want to store stuff they won't need again in a hurry
we shopped all the time at the salvation army stores and the VOA stores and the like - and later, we donated the stuff back to them - in one sense we rented it from them and made donations to keep them going
and we had cloth diapers for our first (didn't wash them ourselves, had a service) for our second we used disposables - heckuva lot more expensive, heckuva lot more convenient
and we waited to have kids until we were old enough and financially secure enough to handle it
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
clean bedding
empty beer box
instant bassinet for a newborn
breastfeed
for goodness sakes artie, this ain't rocket science - women have been dropping babies on the forest floor for millenia, wiping them off with leaves and sticking them on a breast and we've thrived as a species
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Telling. So is what you've quoted from your little bud the recommended way to raise up any newborn today?
Also, why are you not addressing your own presumptive hypocrisy that you call "fact" and yet have no argument for?
:think:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
drain the CCHD swamp
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. Ten courageous bishops in 2009 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. This is not a charity but simply a way to fund political action groups that support abortion and same sex marriage. You can't trust most of our bishops.
Home
money money money
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. Follow the money. Your money. It is the only leverage you got. You know they are not going to listen to you. Really, who are you? The bishops are using your money. If you don't like what they are doing with it, stop giving it to the church you are going to but don't stop going to church. Use the Church but don't let Her use you if you think She is being corrupted. Pay attention. You will know when you need to give and who to give to.
You can't trust most of our bishops.
Home
A Crisis in the Church
that you can't ignore. Follow the money. Your money. It is the only leverage you got. You know they are not going to listen to you. Really, who are you? The bishops are using your money. If you don't like what they are doing with it, stop giving it to the church you are going to but don't stop going to church. Use the Church but don't let Her use you if you think She is being corrupted. Pay attention. You will know when you need to give and who to give to.
You can't trust most of our bishops.
Home
Lon
Well-known member
It's a solid question that pro-life gets asked all the time. Our answer is that we are genuinely concerned for children after they are born up to the age where they are accountable and able. We do get pointed accusation for not caring about children after they are born, but it isn't true. I've paid for the raising of children in Africa and South America up until after trade-school. The Christian community is often the sole caregiver (rescue missions) in major cities, for street people, even long after government assistance for them individually has ended (the U.S. government does support city rescue missions).
Regarding your work-disability question: We do have workman's compensation and wage insurance both government and corporate sponsored here in the states as well as free lunch/school for their children. There are also ministries that directly address some of these needs as well.
I'd imagine somethings similar in these cases in the UK?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lon, first off, kudos for what you've been doing and my argument isn't with someone like you who isn't flippant or ignorant and callous on the subject. There are many people who are pro life who have charity towards parents and their offspring, it just hasn't been in evidence on here the last few pages overall. There's people on here who think that there shouldn't be governmental assistance in any form for the vulnerable even before people fall through a hardly steadfast safety net as it is by way of.
Again, there's people on here that think that none of the above, at least in any way government aided should be afforded to those on the lower end of the ladder. If someone is unable to work then they shouldn't receive any aid outside of their family, friends or the church etc. That also applies to children born into circumstances such as these.
Of course but as has been apparent on this thread, there's those who would usurp such aid as you can read for yourself. What's your take on those that would remove all of such?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Again, which "fact" would that be JR? Surely you must be able to explain it if its "factual" an' all...
Lon
Well-known member
I can read back of course and have a bit: Doser for instance, in another thread, has said to me, in correction, that it ALWAYS takes a village to raise a child. He and I were talking of two separate things, but I was trying to say 'in most cases' rather than all, especially when kids fall through the cracks or are taught things against their parent's wishes. So at least as far as Doser, he is for some kind of support system.
Perhaps the argument is rather over 'government' providing for it, rather than people in church and communities. I know its a tough one to separate, but I 'think' that's what is being said in thread, not a defunding, but a removal of government from using tax monies to do it. I think we all understand this anytime our respective governments have poorly used our tax resources where a private sector could have done much better for certain.
Again, I think your knowledge on the UK's history of social support past and present, could benefit a discussion such as this. Charles Dicken's Britain was very different (for example). Here in the U.S. Churches and Corporations (believe that one :noway: ) used to take up more slack where government wasn't needed as much. We even had funding for schools that would often go to a church where 'public' school was held the rest of the week than on Sundays. Many of the folks on TOL may remember a lot of this. I came just as this was all ending with the separation of church and state and it caused some very hard feelings as well as some pretty big problems (as such is bound to do with such a massive turn).
Not sure if this speaks to what you mean, but hope it is somewhat meaningful. Kind of brief, but it might pose a meaningful question or two.
-Lon
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lon, I have doser on ignore and for pretty obvious reasons by now. It does not always take a village or a suburb or anywhere else to raise a child. Charles Dickens often wrote about the shortcomings of society and how the poor had no safety net or recourse to aid. Remove the safety net in place and you'd only increase the poverty of people exponentially, including the newborn. Even with those in place there's still the need for charity. At least with those safeguards in place, children are given paramount importance, unlike the times of "Oliver Twist".
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, correct. Having government involved should ensure an unbiased support (doesn't, but should). While the problem of government is overspending and bigger/larger oversight, thus outrageous spending, it should be balanced, and replaced at times. In the U.S. Welfare is partially being replaced by foodbanks (often in/from churches). Because these churches can do this much more cheaply, it relieves some of the tax burden. I'm in one of the highest taxed states in the union next to California and a few others like it. Any tax relief is good, but our state government isn't doing that any time soon. Our schools here are yet underfunded, according to budget, so we've been fined by the federal a lot of money each day for not meeting our academic budget. It means, no matter what, higher taxes so its a catch 22 at the moment. There is a desire to meet those needs, we are already incredibly over-taxed as a state AND we are footing the state government's bill debt to the Federal. And with that, I'll slowly sink or swim (if I'm strong enough) under the present tax system. Bleeding heart liberal? Shoot, give me a couple of kids! I'll help! We voted to install a railway system so people in my town could travel to watch sports in the other town (Seattle)! Ouch! Priorities, priorities, priorities. While I can talk about it here, and what I wish, it's a miracle I can help at all and so I think (at least for me) most of this is academic because I cannot do much about any of this. My state is liberal. VERY liberal. It has some good and some bad with it. Taxes, thus money where "I'd" like it to go, are different programs. My taxes will go where the majority decides and little fanfare or ability on my part, still I vote and scrape dollars to do good wherever I can. You don't have this kind of difference between provinces I'd imagine not...?