XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.atheism, alt.society.homeless
XPost: talk.politics, soc.culture.usa, alt.teens
From: noshit@myhouse.com
"JaBrIoL" wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0401070424.2bba2d67@posting.google.com...
> " Brooke Lynn Brige" wrote in message
news: > > > the
> > ** There is nothing wrong with welfare for the sick single mothers out
> > there.
> and yet the system is removing them from recieveing it.
## Not from what I read. If they are too SICK to work they can get SSI.
> > I agree the rest should work and support themselves. But they have
> > no educational backgrounds and cannot earn enough to feed themselves and
> > their children. That's where other charities come in and help - or
should.
> and what is wrong with going to school and geting an education.
## How do you suppose they can do that on the minimum wage and children to
take care of? Will the Watchtower pay for their tuition, carfare and
childcare? Where do they eat, shop and sleep?
> > > It has also been proven that responsible parents will do whatever is
> > > necessary to support thier children.
> > > these parent do get help.
> > ** From where? Who is helping them? The local churches?
> from the state. the sate send them to get job and provide them with
> child care and kid medical care.
** So? What's wrong with that?
> this why it is falwed, a sick mother cant work. In our congregation,
> we provide for those who really need the help.
** How do you provide for them? How much does the WTS allow them for rent,
food, education etc?
> > ** What's right with it? Most grow up to be responsible adults. Who
would
> > decide which teens were and which weren't responsible?
> the state does of course..
** So the "State," who never even SAW or met the young person makes this
decision? How communistic the WTS must be to teach you this.
they do not support children anylonger if
> you have an out of wedlock child. they go after the father. and if the
> father is not named.. no welfare.
** I agree with that - unless the mother is too SICK to work. The fathers
should be forced to support their children. These men should be encouraged
to get vasectomies (sterilized) if they don't want to support their unwanted
children.
Would you have these kids suffer?
** Would you? Make the fathers support them.
> hence by thier own action they are demmed irresponsible.
> Any person who has a kida without planningfor them are irresonsible.
** The WTS never taught you that birth control can and does fail?
> > ** You're confused again. I never saw a post anywhere in Usenet making
THAT
> > claim.
> you do it all the time...
** You need your meds adjusted again. NO ONE ever made that claim in ARJW.
> > ** You shouldn't support them. But if you sterilize them you will have
to
> > pay for that and then pay for the reverse operation in years to come
when
> > they're mature, married and want a family.
> nope sterilazion is permanent. if they want a child, they can adopt
> one or buy a baby in china.
** How Christian of you. How Jehovah's Witness of you. You sound like a
true communist.
> > ** Who decides which teens will have a forced sterilization procedure
and
> > which wont?
> the state... and it seem they are going that route, it is practice in
> the Austrian state of california.
** Oh I see, so California FORCES them into hospitals now and FORCES the
sterilization procedure on unwilling people? Do they also tie them down to
perform the surgery? Do the Police stand by to arrest them if they
protest? How did the rest of America miss this?
--
Dicky.....
"Men (like Jabriol) never do evil so completely and
cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
~ Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
