If I understand the objections, partly this seems to be an issue with the mother’s “morals”. But part seems to be a blanket condemnation of not giving a child both a father and a mother.
It is hard to see how that condemnation would not apply if the father had died before the baby was born, or in the case where the mother dies in childbirth.
In other words, and Morgana can explain how we should actually interpret what she said, it sounds like if you are parents of a child, and one of you dies, if the other can’t get a new husband/wife right away, the surviving parent should give up the child for adoption.
“In other words, and Morgana can explain how we should actually interpret what she said, it sounds like if you are parents of a child, and one of you dies, if the other can’t get a new husband/wife right away, the surviving parent should give up the child for adoption.”
You know what I meant by that statement. I’ve dealt with the prolife/abortion industry for how long now? Most these women just having babies left and right with no regards as to having a man around. Women’s lib has even told them “you don’t need a man” to raise a baby. Well guess what? You need a man to take your daughter to a father-daughter dance!!!
The article did not say the father was dead, just not there. That is PC white washed for “she had the baby out of wedlock”. Come on we are smart FReepers we can see through that. Had he been dead she would have said so, and played that card big time.
NO this child has a father somewhere. She drains him for child support and he can’t even take her to a dance.