SIngle mom of quads

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

I never said screw the kids. I said "I do feel for the kids." It's in
the part you quoted. I may or may not feel sorry for the mom. That
doesn't equal screw the mom, either. She just may or may not get my
sympathy.

Personally, I don't particularly care whether people
feel sorry for her or not, or what their opinion is about
her choices. Where I get hot and bothered is when it comes
down to policy decisions based on people's opinions.
Obviously, one has to draw a line somewhere when it comes
to benefits, but I don't like the notion that one has
to be perfectly blameless somehow in order to receive
benefits that do nothing more than assist with the
basic necessities of life.

And how did you get on this from my post? I didn't say anything in regards
to her benefits. It didn't even cross my mind. My post only dealt with
whether or not I felt sorry for the mom. Or were you just thinking of all
this and tagged it onto my post? It sounded like you were upset with me for
what I posted and it bothers me, because it makes people think I said
something I really didn't.

toypup wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

toypup wrote:


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

I never said screw the kids. I said "I do feel for the kids." It's in
the part you quoted. I may or may not feel sorry for the mom. That
doesn't equal screw the mom, either. She just may or may not get my
sympathy.

Personally, I don't particularly care whether people
feel sorry for her or not, or what their opinion is about
her choices. Where I get hot and bothered is when it comes
down to policy decisions based on people's opinions.
Obviously, one has to draw a line somewhere when it comes
to benefits, but I don't like the notion that one has
to be perfectly blameless somehow in order to receive
benefits that do nothing more than assist with the
basic necessities of life.


And how did you get on this from my post? I didn't say anything in regards
to her benefits. It didn't even cross my mind. My post only dealt with
whether or not I felt sorry for the mom. Or were you just thinking of all
this and tagged it onto my post? It sounded like you were upset with me for
what I posted and it bothers me, because it makes people think I said
something I really didn't.

I suppose I was stretching it saying I don't
particularly care whether people feel sorry for her.
You originally said that whether you would "feel for
her" was dependent on her choices. I guess my personal
bias is that people are deserving of compassion
regardless, perhaps barring a really egregious
circumstance, even if one doesn't approve of their
behavior. It was really that statement that ruffled
my feathers. I would say that I *personally* would
not choose single parenthood (harder than I want
to work, personally), but on the other hand, I didn't
*have* to even consider that option. That doesn't
mean I can't or don't feel for a woman who wants a
baby badly enough to choose single motherhood and
who ended up with more than she bargained for. I
don't have to like the choice to have compassion
for the result.
Plus, I think it's the ease with which we
can dismiss others as being deserving of their
circumstances that makes it very easy to create
policy saying people have to have made "right"
choices to be deserving of benefits. To me,
there's a very close relationship between the
two.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
I suppose I was stretching it saying I don't
particularly care whether people feel sorry for her.
You originally said that whether you would "feel for
her" was dependent on her choices. I guess my personal
bias is that people are deserving of compassion
regardless, perhaps barring a really egregious
circumstance, even if one doesn't approve of their
behavior. It was really that statement that ruffled
my feathers.

When I don't feel for someone, it is really more a feeling of neutrality. I
would not despise her for her choices. I just wouldn't feel that sorry for
her. Maybe it's all the same to you, but not for me.

toypup wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

I suppose I was stretching it saying I don't
particularly care whether people feel sorry for her.
You originally said that whether you would "feel for
her" was dependent on her choices. I guess my personal
bias is that people are deserving of compassion
regardless, perhaps barring a really egregious
circumstance, even if one doesn't approve of their
behavior. It was really that statement that ruffled
my feathers.


When I don't feel for someone, it is really more a feeling of neutrality. I
would not despise her for her choices. I just wouldn't feel that sorry for
her. Maybe it's all the same to you, but not for me.

I'm sure people have all different personal
interpretations of that. Really, whether I agree
with them or not, people certainly have the right
to feel however they feel about her situation or
her choices. Just as I don't have to agree with
her choices to feel compassion for her or to
feel that she deserves support for her children,
I also don't have to agree with your feelings to
believe you have a right to them ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

I suppose I was stretching it saying I don't
particularly care whether people feel sorry for her.
You originally said that whether you would "feel for
her" was dependent on her choices. I guess my personal
bias is that people are deserving of compassion
regardless, perhaps barring a really egregious
circumstance, even if one doesn't approve of their
behavior. It was really that statement that ruffled
my feathers.


When I don't feel for someone, it is really more a feeling of
neutrality. I
would not despise her for her choices. I just wouldn't feel that sorry
for
her. Maybe it's all the same to you, but not for me.

I'm sure people have all different personal
interpretations of that. Really, whether I agree
with them or not, people certainly have the right
to feel however they feel about her situation or
her choices. Just as I don't have to agree with
her choices to feel compassion for her or to
feel that she deserves support for her children,
I also don't have to agree with your feelings to
believe you have a right to them ;-)

Talk about judgemental. Did you really mean
you actively disagreed with someone for not
feeling something?


Best wishes,
Ericka

Cathy Kearns wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

toypup wrote:


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...


I suppose I was stretching it saying I don't
particularly care whether people feel sorry for her.
You originally said that whether you would "feel for
her" was dependent on her choices. I guess my personal
bias is that people are deserving of compassion
regardless, perhaps barring a really egregious
circumstance, even if one doesn't approve of their
behavior. It was really that statement that ruffled
my feathers.


When I don't feel for someone, it is really more a feeling of

neutrality. I

would not despise her for her choices. I just wouldn't feel that sorry

for

her. Maybe it's all the same to you, but not for me.

I'm sure people have all different personal
interpretations of that. Really, whether I agree
with them or not, people certainly have the right
to feel however they feel about her situation or
her choices. Just as I don't have to agree with
her choices to feel compassion for her or to
feel that she deserves support for her children,
I also don't have to agree with your feelings to
believe you have a right to them ;-)


Talk about judgemental. Did you really mean
you actively disagreed with someone for not
feeling something?

No, I said I disagreed with her
feelings/opinions, but not with her right to
have them.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

toypup wrote:


And how did you get on this from my post? I didn't say anything in regards
to her benefits. It didn't even cross my mind. My post only dealt with
whether or not I felt sorry for the mom. Or were you just thinking of all
this and tagged it onto my post? It sounded like you were upset with me for
what I posted and it bothers me, because it makes people think I said
something I really didn't.


::snip::

Plus, I think it's the ease with which we
can dismiss others as being deserving of their
circumstances that makes it very easy to create
policy saying people have to have made "right"
choices to be deserving of benefits. To me,
there's a very close relationship between the
two.


In all fairness, there is a difference between not having personal sympathy with
someone, and wanting their choices sanctioned against in term of insurance
benefits, public assistance, etc.

There a discernible 'space' between thinking something a very poor choice, and
thinking that that choice is *so* poor and far-reaching that actual sanctions of
some sort should be in place. Furthermore, even if one would consider a
person's choices all that bad, a lot of people would still want to extend
benefits for larger purposes like public health, quality of future citizenry, or
overriding ethical concerns.

So I don't think it's such an easy leap from lack of sympathy to punitive
policy. At least not for most people.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Plus, I think it's the ease with which we
can dismiss others as being deserving of their
circumstances that makes it very easy to create
policy saying people have to have made "right"
choices to be deserving of benefits. To me,
there's a very close relationship between the
two.

In all fairness, there is a difference between not having personal sympathy with
someone, and wanting their choices sanctioned against in term of insurance
benefits, public assistance, etc.

There a discernible 'space' between thinking something a very poor choice, and
thinking that that choice is *so* poor and far-reaching that actual sanctions of
some sort should be in place. Furthermore, even if one would consider a
person's choices all that bad, a lot of people would still want to extend
benefits for larger purposes like public health, quality of future citizenry, or
overriding ethical concerns.

So I don't think it's such an easy leap from lack of sympathy to punitive
policy. At least not for most people.

Hmmm...I agree that punitive policy is not a *necessary*
follow-up to lack of sympathy; however, lack of sympathy
certainly seems to be a prerequisite to a desire for punitive
policy. I also find that whenever I hear,
"She brought it all on herself with her lousy choices,"
it's usually followed by, "That's not my problem and my
tax dollars shouldn't have to pay for it!"

I guess my perception, based on my experience,
is that it's easy to feel that someone has made a bad
choice and still not have a desire for punitive policy.
However, when one takes it a step further and no longer
feels *compassion*, despite disagreeing with the choices,
it is much more likely that that person will have a desire
for punitive policy. I'm sure it's not 100 percent, but
it sure seems pretty prevalent from where I'm sitting
(living among quite a few people who appear to hold those
views). But, maybe I live in a weird place ;-) Still,
I think it fairly logical that the desire for punitive
policy (which seems to have been on the increase over
the last several years) would take a nosedive if everyone
felt compassion for people, even when they'd made poor
choices. (Not saying that's possible or even desireable,
as I'm sure there are situations so egregious I'd have
a darned hard time mustering up any compassion. Just
making the observation.)

Best wishes,
Ericka

Clearly, the plan was to have only one child.

And she could have ended up delivering all four, but raising only one.

She could have placed some or all for adoption, ensuring that all of
them would have a good shot at a reasonable life.

Marilyn

"Marilyn" wrote in message
om...
Clearly, the plan was to have only one child.

And she could have ended up delivering all four, but raising only one.

She could have placed some or all for adoption, ensuring that all of
them would have a good shot at a reasonable life.

Frankly, I have a hard time with this sort of position. After having lost
one child, I can't imagine how any mother could go through pregnancy and
then give their baby up. I have a lot of respect for women who do so-but I
have no clue how they could do it. And how would you pick which one to keep?


Marilyn