That's something you should have made sure you knew before you started throwing stones. Since I'm not interested in stoning her, my only obligation in the case is charity. I do find it interesting that confronted with scripture about your own Christian obligations, you can come back only with your personal opinion of what women "should" do with their children when the father abandons them. There's no basis in scripture that a woman who's lost the father of her children is obliged to give them up.
> I do find it interesting that confronted with scripture about your own Christian obligations, you can come back only with your personal opinion of what women “should” do with their children when the father abandons them.
I find it interesting that you always support sluts over chaste women and attack those who advocate returning to traditional sexual morals. I would hazard to guess that reflects your own soul.
>There’s no basis in scripture that a woman who’s lost the father of her children is obliged to give them up.
Lost or ditched? Because we both know that statistically she almost certainly ditched him.
Secondly there’s a long Christian tradition that A) women with children should be married to the father of their children B) be married to another man who will provide the proper fatherly influence for the children or C) give them up to a two parent home of a related family member with the exception of widows.
My own great great grand mother got knocked up and she immediately got married to the first man who would take her and went on to have 8 children with him. She repented of her sin correctly and my great grand father grew up in a loving 2 parent home.
Why are you advocating that modern women continue living in sin when the solution to the problem is them either: A) marrying the father of their child, B) marrying another man who will raise that child correctly?