Safety in Relationships

[Doug Anderson]

Safety in Relationships

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

There is. But a couple posters have said they would cease financiallysupporting a teenaged child who had a baby if that teenaged childdidn't abort or put the baby up for adoption.These posters didn't distinguish between cases when when that teenagerwas a minor and cases when that teenager was of age. I did.

Yes, you did (though not at first; in the first couple posts you made
about not financing a child, you didn't make that distinction, leading
to some confusion - I think your words were "If I think keeping the
child is a poor option, I can't see financing it").

Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.

[Emma Anne]

Safety in Relationships

urf <[email protected]> wrote:

For me, it is a wonder. I look at babies and wonder how they could go unloved. Then I see some folks who could reject their babies and their babies babies on some "principal" that they accept over their own child.

I'm with you, Urf.

Also, I seriously doubt all this threatening and finger shaking has the
desired effect. I had a friend whose parents got married because they
"had to" and he threatened all the same stuff if any of them ever got
pregnant out of wedlock. Of the three sisters, two did. What a great
way to get a huge rise out of their controlling father (not that I think
it was on purpose, exactly).

And for me, threatening to kick my kids out or not help take care of the
baby would be pointless, because they would know I was lying. Just like
when I tell them I am going to knock their heads together and they
giggle.

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

>> >There is. But a couple posters have said they would cease financially

supporting a teenaged child who had a baby if that teenaged childdidn't abort or put the baby up for adoption.These posters didn't distinguish between cases when when that teenagerwas a minor and cases when that teenager was of age. I did.Yes, you did (though not at first; in the first couple posts you madeabout not financing a child, you didn't make that distinction, leadingto some confusion - I think your words were "If I think keeping thechild is a poor option, I can't see financing it").Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.

Actually, I believe he did too.

Sheila

[Doug Anderson]

Safety in Relationships

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

>There is. But a couple posters have said they would cease financially >supporting a teenaged child who had a baby if that teenaged child >didn't abort or put the baby up for adoption. > >These posters didn't distinguish between cases when when that teenager >was a minor and cases when that teenager was of age. I did.Yes, you did (though not at first; in the first couple posts you madeabout not financing a child, you didn't make that distinction, leadingto some confusion - I think your words were "If I think keeping thechild is a poor option, I can't see financing it").Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know. Actually, I believe he did too.

Really? What did he say?

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

>> >Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.

Actually, I believe he did too.Really? What did he say?

Basically, that an adult child would be on their own, but a minor would stay at
home, if I recall correctly.

Sheila

[Tracey]

Safety in Relationships



Doug Anderson wrote:

Tracey <[email protected]> writes:

urf wrote:

Just a quick question for those of you in this thread.Do any of you have grandchildren?Could you disavow your own grandchild?

I don't know but maybe there's a problem with communication here.I see people talking about 'turning their back on their pregnantchild' and 'disavowing' them. There's a *big* difference in tellingyour children and backing it up with actions that a pregnancy forthem under the age of 18 will mean that they will be doing thevast majority of the caretaking of that child and not you and ifthey're over the age of 18 it will mean the same thing except thatthey will be expected to get their own apartment and do the parentingthere and throwing your child out on the street and pretending notto recognize them when you see them.

There is. But a couple posters have said they would cease financially supporting a teenaged child who had a baby if that teenaged child didn't abort or put the baby up for adoption.

Well, gotta say, I would cease being fully financially supporting
to a teenaged child who had a baby, too. Of course, there's a
difference in a 13yo teenager and an 18yo teenage. There's even
a difference between a 15 or 16yo teenage and an 18yo teenage.
The 13yo and on up to high school graduation age child would
most likely still remain living in the same house, but me/us
fully financially supporting them as if they were a child without
a baby? No.

These posters didn't distinguish between cases when when that teenager was a minor and cases when that teenager was of age.

Our son recently went to spend 10 days with his GF's family. Theylive quite a ways away from us now. We had a long talk with himbefore he left and basically laid it out for him. That if theydecided to be 'stupid' while he was there and we were to get aphone call a couple of months from now informing us of impendinggrandparenthood, his future day-to-day life was going to be muchdifferent and we laid it out for him how very different it wouldbe. (Computer and video game systems sold to provide baby itemsfor the child, full-time job to pay for day-to-day expenses forthe child, etc.) We also talked about how my parents started workingin a factory when they were 16 and 17 and, after the kids startedcoming, worked in the same factory for 30 and 40 years, hatingevery minute of it because they *had* to work there to supporttheir family. And the difference between them and myself and hisfather in that we had careers we liked *before* we had childrenso working to support them wasn't a 'Hate every minute spent there'kind of thing.

Good talk. Can I borrow your grandparents?

Sure. Although, it made a much bigger impression on him since
he's heard from their own mouths how much they hated that factory.

Tracey

[Tony Miller]

Safety in Relationships

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 21:27:09 GMT, urf
<[email protected]> wrote:

"Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

On 06 Jul 2004 17:41:28 -0700, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:> >> Tony didn't say he'd turn his back on her - he said he doesn't want

to

> >> financially support her.> >> >If her life depends on his support, he is in fact turning his back on> >her. If she needs to live with him, he would not allow that either.> >I suppose turning your back on someone means different things to us.>> Caren, I dunno. I think that it is reasonable for parents to say to a

pregnant

> teen (or a teen whose girlfriend is pregnant):>> "Being a parent is for adults. One has to become an adult, in every

way ---

> emotionally, physically, and financially. If you choose to become a

parent

> (i.e., not have an abortion, and not put the baby up for adoption), you

will be

> choosing to become an adult. I will not be taking over your> responsibilities." That seems reasonable to me too. Do you think that would be Tony's attitude to a pregnant teen-age daughter? I find it hard to imagine that he could forgive his daughter having an abortion, but maybe I'm wrong. It's not my place to forgive her, because the crime wasn't against me. It's God's place to forgive her. But she is still my daughter. I will love her, and visit her, but I will not financially support her. This is the consequence for her action.

That would leave the daughter a choice between putting up her baby for an adoption (a decision many people find quite difficult to make) or getting no help.

She knows the consequences of her actions up front.

> I've talked about this with people before, and they have pointed out to

me that

> I don't know, for sure, what I would do if my daughter/son came to me

in this

> circumstances. And, in this case, they are right... I'm pretty sure

what I

> would do, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.>> I don't, however, think it is INCUMBANT on the parents of the pregnant

teen to

> take over that responsibility, over which they had no choice or> control. You may not think that. But legally, we parents are responsible for the actions of our minor children. This can become quite challenging as our minor children grow more and more capable of making adult-sized mistakes! Sure it is. When children make adult-sized mistakes, we deal with them. Sometimes that means disciplining them. -Tony

Tony, you seem cool enough to maintain a relationship with your child throughout her lifetime (If you want to that is), but how would you feel if she became estranged from you and your wife as an adult? Would you be happy, indifferent or sad?

I'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. And you are a
total dumbass.

Would you say that it was the result of your actions and that you were responsible for the estrangement?

Here's the deal. You can forgive someone, which requires you let go of
any anger you might feel towards them, but they are still responsible for
the consequences of their actions.

This means that if my daughter killed someone, I would not harbor ill will
toward her, but she would still go to jail and do the time.

One of the big problems with our young people today is that they are not
held responsible for their actions. If she wants to do adult things, like
let some boy put his penis in her vagina, she can accept the adult
consequences for it.

If she harbors hatred toward me for those consequences, well, that's her
problem.

So kiss my ***, urf.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

[Doug Anderson]

Safety in Relationships

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

>Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know. Actually, I believe he did too.Really? What did he say? Basically, that an adult child would be on their own, but a minor would stay at home, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I asked him if I meant he wouldn't financially support a
minor daughter who had a child.

He said that he wouldn't.

He simultaneously said he wouldn't kick her out of the house though,
so I don't really know what he means.

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

>[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

> >Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.>> Actually, I believe he did too.Really? What did he say? Basically, that an adult child would be on their own, but a minor would

stay at

home, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I asked him if I meant he wouldn't financially support aminor daughter who had a child.He said that he wouldn't.He simultaneously said he wouldn't kick her out of the house though,so I don't really know what he means.

Quite possibly the same thing I mean: I would expect my daughter to go to
school and work part-time. Money she got from work would go toward supporting
herself and the baby. Money from the baby's father would go for their
support, too. It would not be spent on movies, clothes and cell phones, as
would be the case if they were sixteen, working and *not* a parent. I would
expect them to, as closely as possible, approximate what they would encounter
if they lived outside my home, as an adult.

Sheila

[urf]

Safety in Relationships


"Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 21:27:09 GMT, urf <[email protected]> wrote:

"Tony Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

On 06 Jul 2004 17:41:28 -0700, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] (WhansaMi) writes: > >> >> Tony didn't say he'd turn his back on her - he said he doesn't

want

to

>> >> financially support her. >> > >> >If her life depends on his support, he is in fact turning his back

on

>> >her. If she needs to live with him, he would not allow that

either.

>> >I suppose turning your back on someone means different things to

us.

>> >> Caren, I dunno. I think that it is reasonable for parents to say to

a

pregnant

>> teen (or a teen whose girlfriend is pregnant): >> >> "Being a parent is for adults. One has to become an adult, in every

way ---

>> emotionally, physically, and financially. If you choose to become a

parent

>> (i.e., not have an abortion, and not put the baby up for adoption),

you

will be

>> choosing to become an adult. I will not be taking over your >> responsibilities." > > That seems reasonable to me too. > > Do you think that would be Tony's attitude to a pregnant teen-age > daughter? I find it hard to imagine that he could forgive his > daughter having an abortion, but maybe I'm wrong. It's not my place to forgive her, because the crime wasn't against me. It's God's place to forgive her. But she is still my daughter. I will love her, and visit her, but I

will

not financially support her. This is the consequence for her action. > That would leave the daughter a choice between putting up her baby

for

> an adoption (a decision many people find quite difficult to make) or > getting no help. She knows the consequences of her actions up front. >> I've talked about this with people before, and they have pointed out

to

me that

>> I don't know, for sure, what I would do if my daughter/son came to

me

in this

>> circumstances. And, in this case, they are right... I'm pretty sure

what I

>> would do, but I wouldn't bet the house on it. >> >> I don't, however, think it is INCUMBANT on the parents of the

pregnant

teen to

>> take over that responsibility, over which they had no choice or >> control. > > You may not think that. But legally, we parents are responsible for > the actions of our minor children. This can become quite challenging > as our minor children grow more and more capable of making

adult-sized

> mistakes! Sure it is. When children make adult-sized mistakes, we deal with

them.

Sometimes that means disciplining them. -Tony

Tony, you seem cool enough to maintain a relationship with your child throughout her lifetime (If you want to that is), but how would you feel if she became estranged from you and your wife as an adult? Would you be happy, indifferent or sad?

I'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. And you are a total dumbass.

I assume that is sarcasm and you really would feel bad. Why did my question
make you
so angry? Anyway, you do realize that raising children is a continuum. That
what you do now
will be visited back upon you (and your wife) in later years. I would not
take such a strong stance
in these matters. I'm sure you understand that but your posturing could
paint you into a corner.
Probably not on this subject but surely another.

The bible says .... as ye sow, so shall ye reap, or some such. I think that
there is an example of
wisdom in the bible. Those are words to live by.

Would you say that it was the result of your actions and that you were responsible for the estrangement? Here's the deal. You can forgive someone, which requires you let go of any anger you might feel towards them, but they are still responsible for the consequences of their actions. This means that if my daughter killed someone, I would not harbor ill will toward her, but she would still go to jail and do the time. One of the big problems with our young people today is that they are not held responsible for their actions. If she wants to do adult things, like let some boy put his penis in her vagina, she can accept the adult consequences for it.

In like manner, you too should be responsible for your actions towards your
children.
I've heard that a cornerstone of Christian beliefs is charity, kindness and
turning the other cheek
but I don't really know much about it myself.

If she harbors hatred toward me for those consequences, well, that's her problem.

It's your problem too Tony. You must have some Sicilian in you Tony. This is
the stuff
of that vendettas are made of.

So kiss my ***, urf. -Tony

Tony, I did not intend to anger you, only present a counter point to your
intransigence.
You should note that on the very first line I indicated that I did not think
that these
problems would befall you. I only asked a hypothetical question to elicit
your views
on the subject. I got more than I bargained for. I apologize if the question
hit a sore
spot.

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

Urf wrote:

Tony, I did not intend to anger you, only present a counter point to yourintransigence.You should note that on the very first line I indicated that I did not thinkthat theseproblems would befall you. I only asked a hypothetical question to elicityour viewson the subject. I got more than I bargained for. I apologize if the questionhit a sorespot.

I got the feeling you were baiting him, when I read your response. It
certainly looked that way.

I got a similar feeling about your question to "those of you who are responding
to this thread". I think you might want to take a closer look at *your*
motivations.

Sheila

[Bill in Co.]

Safety in Relationships

WhansaMi wrote:

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

>>> Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.>>>> Actually, I believe he did too.>> Really? What did he say? Basically, that an adult child would be on their own, but a minor would stay at home, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I asked him if I meant he wouldn't financially support a minor daughter who had a child. He said that he wouldn't. He simultaneously said he wouldn't kick her out of the house though, so I don't really know what he means. Quite possibly the same thing I mean: I would expect my daughter to go to school and work part-time. Money she got from work would go toward supporting herself and the baby. Money from the baby's father would go

for

their support, too.

This sounds pretty good, Sheila. Really. But I can see a potential
problem:

Let's just suppose, though, that that is not enough money to pay for the
babysitting while she is in school (which might be true). Then who takes
care of the kid when she is in school? Or how is that going to be paid
for?

[Bill in Co.]

Safety in Relationships

WhansaMi wrote:

Urf wrote:

Tony, I did not intend to anger you, only present a counter point to your intransigence. You should note that on the very first line I indicated that I did not

think

that these problems would befall you. I only asked a hypothetical question to elicit your views on the subject. I got more than I bargained for. I apologize if the

question

hit a sore spot. I got the feeling you were baiting him, when I read your response. It certainly looked that way. I got a similar feeling about your question to "those of you who are responding to this thread". I think you might want to take a closer look

at

*your* motivations. Sheila

But what would those be? (I don't get it).

[Doug Anderson]

Safety in Relationships

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

Urf wrote:

Tony, I did not intend to anger you, only present a counter point to yourintransigence.You should note that on the very first line I indicated that I did not thinkthat theseproblems would befall you. I only asked a hypothetical question to elicityour viewson the subject. I got more than I bargained for. I apologize if the questionhit a sorespot.

I got the feeling you were baiting him, when I read your response. It certainly looked that way. I got a similar feeling about your question to "those of you who are responding to this thread". I think you might want to take a closer look at *your* motivations.

But really Sheila, by writing (as both you and Tony did, though you
later modified) that you would not support a child of your who chose
to have a baby, you invite a certain amount of confrontation.

Now you admit that isn't really what you _meant_ but that is what your
first few posts on this subject (and many of Tony's) actually _said_.

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

>WhansaMi wrote:

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:>>>> Tony hasn't made a distinction at all, as far as I know.>>>>>> Actually, I believe he did too.>>>> Really? What did he say?>>> Basically, that an adult child would be on their own, but a minor would> stay at home, if I recall correctly. Actually, I asked him if I meant he wouldn't financially support a minor daughter who had a child. He said that he wouldn't. He simultaneously said he wouldn't kick her out of the house though, so I don't really know what he means. Quite possibly the same thing I mean: I would expect my daughter to go to school and work part-time. Money she got from work would go toward supporting herself and the baby. Money from the baby's father would gofor

their support, too.

This sounds pretty good, Sheila. Really. But I can see a potentialproblem:Let's just suppose, though, that that is not enough money to pay for thebabysitting while she is in school (which might be true). Then who takescare of the kid when she is in school? Or how is that going to be paidfor?

Well, I see a couple of potential answers:

(1) To answer the greater issue of money (not just as it pertains to school
hours and child care), it is highly unlikely that what she made working
part-time (likely in a minimum wage job) would cover her expenses. I said, "as
closely approximating what life would be like if she were on her own" (or
something like that... I'm not googling for the exact quote). So, of course, I
would, necessarily be contributing some to **her** upkeep. But, from her
perspective, she would be expected to bring in as much as she could, and she
would not be using it as discretionary funds -- it would all be upkeep for the
baby, because, as you point out, she will not have any beyond that. It is my
responsibility to support her..... I would not consider it my responsibility to
support her baby. If she made those decisions, that would be her
responsibility.

(2) With regard to school and daycare, there are schools for mothers, which
allow babies. She would likely go to one of those.

Sheila


she attends a school for mothers (most metropolitan areas have one, including
ours).