Safety in Relationships

[WhansaMi]

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).

Her baited, and then threw out the "I can't imagine what you are getting so
upset about.... you might want to see if that hit too close to home, and why
you got so upset about that" line. I hate that. You **aim** to get someone
riled (in this case, with an thinly veiled accusation that Tony must not care
too much about his relationship with his daughter) and then act as if it has
some profound meaning when someone takes the bait. There is nothing profound
there.

Now, I think Tony should have seen the trap, and not stepped in it (as I made
the conscious effort to do earlier), but that is a different issue. :-)

Sheila

[Bill in Co.]

Safety in Relationships

WhansaMi wrote:

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). Her baited, and then threw out the "I can't imagine what you are getting

so

upset about.... you might want to see if that hit too close to home, and

why

you got so upset about that" line. I hate that. You **aim** to get

someone

riled (in this case, with an thinly veiled accusation that Tony must not

care

too much about his relationship with his daughter) and then act as if it

has

some profound meaning when someone takes the bait. There is nothing

profound

there. Now, I think Tony should have seen the trap, and not stepped in it (as I

made

the conscious effort to do earlier), but that is a different issue. :-) Sheila

You've lost me. Are you saying Urf was baiting Tony, or Tony was baiting
Urf, or something like that? I can't even figure out what the "Her baited
and then threw out" line means above (or who this is referring to).
Maybe I need a bit more coffee.

[Tai]

Safety in Relationships

urf wrote:

Just a quick question for those of you in this thread. Do any of you have grandchildren?

Nope.

Could you disavow your own grandchild?

Not in this lifetime.

Tai

[Tai]

Safety in Relationships

Emma Anne wrote:

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.

And I.

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.

Hee...

It's beyond me how anyone who actually wanted their own children could look
at their new grandchild and say, "you're on your own, sweetheart" to his
mother or father where there was a clear need for extra help. Especially an
underage teen or very young adult. Aside from anything else, my
grandchildren feel like my responsibility, after they are their mother and
father's. So do siblings and nephews and nieces for that matter.

Mind you, I could see me using Tracey's lecture and following through on it.

In some ways it would actually be easier to deal with an underage pregnancy
than with an adult but totally inept son or daughter becoming a parent. At
least with a teen pregnancy I could hope that the error was a mistake of
youth and my child would grow into his or her responsibilities. I wouldn't
want that time to be all work and joyless for him, either, as some kind of
punishment.After all, what I want is for my children and their children to
be happy and loved.

Tai

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships


"Doug Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s51...

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

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 theseproblems would befall you. I only asked a hypothetical question to

elicit

your viewson the subject. I got more than I bargained for. I apologize if the

question

hit 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.

If I were a pacificist (which I'm not) and said on here that I would not
support a child of mine who decided to do ROTC because I thought it was a
poor (and unethical) decision, it likely would not have been taken to mean
that I would cut off food and water. It would be taken as I meant it ---
that this activity would be on his/her own, with him or her bearing the
cost, and the responsibility for all that it entails.

I don't care if people disagree with me. I don't care if people voice that
opinion. I do think it is wrong to say something (directly or indirectly)
that is meant to be a major cut, and then throw it back at the other person
when they react negatively, stating, "Oh... that must be a sore spot.
Obviously, there is some truth in what I am saying."

I was trying to think of a good analogy last night, and I think I thought of
one. If anyone here watches "Last Comic Standing", they'll get the
reference. The last comic kicked off the show was Ant. Ant is gay. Ant is
also an ***. Now, imagine we were talking about it, and I was saying I'm
glad I don't have to watch Ant anymore, that I think he is a major ***.
Someone else comes in and says, "You are a bigot. You hate gay people." I'd
be pissed. Not because there is **any** truth in that statement; there
isn't. I'd be angry that someone would cast about aspersions like that
about me. I know I'm not homophobic or a bigot. Hell, I set up gay friends
to be the guardians of my kids. I'd be pissed because someone made a
public, UNTRUE accusation.

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_.

No, I said what I meant. Your interpretation of it was different than my
intent, but I fully said what I meant. (And, in case you don't realize it,
the word "admit" there is one of those little "slams" that I've complained
to you so much about, but you persist in using in your conversations with
me, which is why, **again** I am calling an end to our discourse.}

Sheila

[urf]

Safety in Relationships


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

Emma Anne wrote:

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.

And I.

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.

Hee... It's beyond me how anyone who actually wanted their own children could

look

at their new grandchild and say, "you're on your own, sweetheart" to his mother or father where there was a clear need for extra help. Especially

an

underage teen or very young adult. Aside from anything else, my grandchildren feel like my responsibility, after they are their mother and father's. So do siblings and nephews and nieces for that matter. Mind you, I could see me using Tracey's lecture and following through on

it.

In some ways it would actually be easier to deal with an underage

pregnancy

than with an adult but totally inept son or daughter becoming a parent. At least with a teen pregnancy I could hope that the error was a mistake of youth and my child would grow into his or her responsibilities. I wouldn't want that time to be all work and joyless for him, either, as some kind of punishment.After all, what I want is for my children and their children to be happy and loved. Tai

I don't think I ever heard before that you were a grandmother Tai. Your
posts always have such a youthful flair.

Speaking of taking the easy way out though. Isn't it the easiest way
out when you turn your wayward child out into the street? Just bail
and forget them.

[urf]

Safety in Relationships


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

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

think

that 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

question

hit 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

My motivations are simple. I like to present a point of view. It does not
have to be popular
or accepted or even read. I present my point of view for me, not the reader.
If the
reader gets something out of it I'm pleased, if not then what is the
difference if I
present that view or not?

In the course of posting, sometimes what any of us say is worth a challenge.
We (you & I) have certainly been at odds at times. I harbor no ill feelings
about it though.
In fact, I enjoy you more having once been in conflict with you. In Tony's
case I respect
him and I have said so. Recently I made a post or two just to point out that
I was
in agreement with him. He is certainly different from me but that is ok with
me.
In this thread I think that the posturing against one's own children
deserves a challenge.
If the reasoning behind the posturing is worthwhile it can withstand a
challenge.
As a father of adults, f-i-l of adults and grandfather of babies, I have a
perspective
that a younger person does not have, even a person with teenagers. I can
look back.
I can look back at my own mistakes and my own positions on a lot of similar
subjects
and see how they played out. That is what I am offering here, now.

[urf]

Safety in Relationships

I just posted them to Sheila.


"Bill in Co." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] link.net...

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).

[WhansaMi]

Safety in Relationships

>> >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 notthink

that 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

question

hit 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

My motivations are simple. I like to present a point of view. It does nothave to be popularor accepted or even read. I present my point of view for me, not the reader.If thereader gets something out of it I'm pleased, if not then what is thedifference if Ipresent that view or not?In the course of posting, sometimes what any of us say is worth a challenge.We (you & I) have certainly been at odds at times. I harbor no ill feelingsabout it though.In fact, I enjoy you more having once been in conflict with you. In Tony'scase I respecthim and I have said so. Recently I made a post or two just to point out thatI wasin agreement with him. He is certainly different from me but that is ok withme.In this thread I think that the posturing against one's own childrendeserves a challenge.If the reasoning behind the posturing is worthwhile it can withstand achallenge.As a father of adults, f-i-l of adults and grandfather of babies, I have aperspectivethat a younger person does not have, even a person with teenagers. I canlook back.I can look back at my own mistakes and my own positions on a lot of similarsubjectsand see how they played out. That is what I am offering here, now.

Presenting your POV is not what I object to. What I object to is then, when
someone has an emotional reaction, to follow up with "I apologize if the
question hit ***a sore spot***" (emphasis mine). It suggests that there was
validity to your argument, when I don't see that at all.

I wrote a post explaining this further a couple of minutes ago. I'll not
repeat here, but you can reference that.

Sheila

[urf]

Safety in Relationships


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

[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

I don't find any problem with this approach. A girl or boy who has a baby by
any means (choice, accident) should behave as responsibly to the child
and there own parents as they are capable of.

The same could be said for them at any age.

[Tony Miller]

Safety in Relationships

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:49:42 -0400, urf
<[email protected]> wrote:

"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

Because doing that to my daughter, though required, would hurt me. It
would go against every instinct I have as a parent to protect my children
from harm. There are times when you need to let go, let them take their
lumps, and grow up.

I have seen first hand the results of someone who has mollycoddled their
child, coming to bat for them right or wrong, bailing them out of every
bad situation. This is the recipe for raising a monster.

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.

Nope. Because we still love our daughter and her child (if she chose to
keep it) or the little angel (if she chose to abort it). If her love for
us is predicated on monetray rmuneration, then what would that say about
her?

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.

Of course, and like adults are supposed to, we'll take the consequences of
our actions.

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.

Turning the other cheek does not mean you'r stupid. If you jump in a lake
with piranhas in it, and they bite your feet, you jump out. You can
forgive the fish, but if you jumped back in you'd be stupid.

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.

No vendetta, I don't think you have a clue where I'm coming from. My
doing the right thing or not is not predicated on how people might treat
me.

So kiss my ***, urf. -Tony Tony, I did not intend to anger you, only present a counter point to your intransigence.

No, you specifically took a potshot, and stupid me rose to the bait. I
should have ignored you like befits the troll you were.

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.

Apology accepted and I forgive you. See, that was easy.

-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.

[Tony Miller]

Safety in Relationships

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:43:11 GMT, WhansaMi
<[email protected]> wrote:

"Doug Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]_s51...

[email protected] (WhansaMi) writes:

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. 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.

If I were a pacificist (which I'm not) and said on here that I would not support a child of mine who decided to do ROTC because I thought it was a poor (and unethical) decision, it likely would not have been taken to mean that I would cut off food and water. It would be taken as I meant it --- that this activity would be on his/her own, with him or her bearing the cost, and the responsibility for all that it entails.

I find it sad that people in our society equate "love" with "money". If
you don't give your daughter money, you must not love her, and are cutting
her off.

By the same token, my mom gives us gifts all the time. If these gifts
came with strings that would strain my marriage I would not accept them.
I guess I'm just not monetarily focused.

I would do the same if one of my daughters wanted to be an abortion
doctor.

I don't care if people disagree with me. I don't care if people voice that opinion. I do think it is wrong to say something (directly or indirectly) that is meant to be a major cut, and then throw it back at the other person when they react negatively, stating, "Oh... that must be a sore spot. Obviously, there is some truth in what I am saying."

This is a popular theme in here (and I'm guilty too to some extent).

I was trying to think of a good analogy last night, and I think I thought of one. If anyone here watches "Last Comic Standing", they'll get the reference. The last comic kicked off the show was Ant. Ant is gay. Ant is also an ***. Now, imagine we were talking about it, and I was saying I'm glad I don't have to watch Ant anymore, that I think he is a major ***. Someone else comes in and says, "You are a bigot. You hate gay people." I'd be pissed. Not because there is **any** truth in that statement; there isn't. I'd be angry that someone would cast about aspersions like that about me. I know I'm not homophobic or a bigot. Hell, I set up gay friends to be the guardians of my kids. I'd be pissed because someone made a public, UNTRUE accusation.

As I would.

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_. No, I said what I meant. Your interpretation of it was different than my intent, but I fully said what I meant. (And, in case you don't realize it, the word "admit" there is one of those little "slams" that I've complained to you so much about, but you persist in using in your conversations with me, which is why, **again** I am calling an end to our discourse.}

And our buddy Doug brought up what I said a week ago after clarifying it
in an entire thread that he probably pretended he didn't read to build a
straw man he could joust. Pathetic.

-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.

[Tony Miller]

Safety in Relationships

On 09 Jul 2004 05:02:51 GMT, WhansaMi
<[email protected]> wrote:

<Snip>

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

There's also an organization called "mom's house" that provides free day
care for girls finishing their education. It's one of the charities we
support.

-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.

[Tony Miller]

Safety in Relationships

On 09 Jul 2004 05:06:42 GMT, WhansaMi
<[email protected]> wrote:

<Snip>

Now, I think Tony should have seen the trap, and not stepped in it (as I made the conscious effort to do earlier), but that is a different issue. :-)

I know, I know...

-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.

[Caren]

Safety in Relationships

[email protected] (WhansaMi) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

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 onher. 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."

It sure is fair to say, but it's hard for me to be objective about
this very issue due to working with young women who get pregnant and
have no one to turn to. On occassion I have wanted to bring these
women home to my house so that I can help them feel like someone cares
about them.

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 believe that as well. We really don't "know" how we'll respond to
unplanned events.

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. If they want to, that is fine, but I don't think badly of anyone who doesn't. I think the ultimate responsibility lays with the teens, who made the choices that put them in that position. Sheila

The ultimate responsibility does lie within the teen however, the
results usually affect countless lives.