Lori Alexander "Give Away Your Kids"

[Jana814]

"Most unselfish"?! How was this shrew ever a teacher?

I wonder the same thing.

[polecat]

I found the comment. I also found that you failed to present a complete picture.

I don't why but the last few days on this forum has been like reading the worst rags that pass as journalism. Inaccurate. Half truths. Half the story. Anything to prey on people's emotions and get them all lathered up with hate, never mind if it is actually true.

Lori explains she was thinking of young teen mothers. Be honest. How many young teen moms do you know and would you encourage them to have an abortion or adopt out the baby? Or do you regularly truly encourage teens to be keep their children when there is likely no way the mom can actually provide for the child?

Here's the c/p "I would definitely not support a mother with older children who was abandoned or divorced to give up her children for adoption. I'm sorry I wasn't clear with my response."

Her presentation isn't that great, but the truth of this matter is that most people do not support teens having babies and would encourage their teen to "get rid of it" . Just as most would expect a 30-something mother of 3 to get a job if her husband dies or runs off or something.

It took her more than an hour to "clarify" what she meant. The way that woman sits on the delete button, there's no way she didn't quickly realize her mistake. It's nice that she clarified her alleged point of view, but you cannot seriously blame the forum for being angry/baffled/horrified/whatever at her original pronouncement.

[polecat]

I agree she is back tracking. Why would you assume she meant teen? Are teens the only ones that get pregnant while single?

The fact that she also said something about them moving back in with their parents also implies to me that she did not originally mean "teen mom" unless she knows a lot of teens who don't live with their parents anymore.

[browngrl]

Fundies in general and Lori specifically seem to go on and on about the horrific negative effects of a mother who works outside the home but they do not ever mention the positive effects i.e. self esteem for the mom, the example it sets for the children (a strong woman who can take care of business), the better housing/food/health care etc the extra money can buy for the children, the better relationships (I think many relationships benefit from individual time) etc.

They are the same way about so many things e.g. they on and on about the evil health effects of the pill but forget to mention things like the beneficial way it reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. It is all black or white to them and pretty much everything that is "other" to them is all negative.

[Firiel]

Well, since you're interested in context, let's take a look at the post AND the comment Lori was responding too before you tire yourself out slapping hands.

The post: Says absolutely zip, zero, zilch about teenage mothers. In other words, NOTHING.

Comments in context:

Lori Alexander:

Reader:

Lori Alexander:

Reader:

(Please note that not one solitary word has been written about teenage mothers, nor does Lori mention them in her comment)

Lori Alexander:

Reader:

Lori Alexander:

I am assuming Lori received more than one comment calling her out on her statement. I am further assuming that when Ken got home and found out what was going on, he suggested she let one of the (milder) comments (particularly one that OFFERED her the excuse that she had been talking about teenage mothers all along) out of moderation and then respond claiming she was referring to teenage mothers the entire time (even though, as we've noted, teenage mothers had never once been mentioned up until that point).

She did. She let at least one other through before deleting it (I assume at the command of Ken). It was a comment that basically said, "Where is this in the Bible? I thought you said children need their mothers. I'm really confused by this!"

[Koala]

She did. She let at least one other through before deleting it (I assume at the command of Ken). It was a comment that basically said, "Where is this in the Bible? I thought you said children need their mothers. I'm really confused by this!"

That's what I figured. Color me shocked that the one comment she let out of moderation was the one the offered a possible excuse for Lori's stupidity.

[docmom]

Hmm, Browniemama, where are you?

[Mama Mia]

I found the comment. I also found that you failed to present a complete picture.

I don't why but the last few days on this forum has been like reading the worst rags that pass as journalism. Inaccurate. Half truths. Half the story. Anything to prey on people's emotions and get them all lathered up with hate, never mind if it is actually true.

Lori explains she was thinking of young teen mothers. Be honest. How many young teen moms do you know and would you encourage them to have an abortion or adopt out the baby? Or do you regularly truly encourage teens to be keep their children when there is likely no way the mom can actually provide for the child?

Here's the c/p "I would definitely not support a mother with older children who was abandoned or divorced to give up her children for adoption. I'm sorry I wasn't clear with my response."

Her presentation isn't that great, but the truth of this matter is that most people do not support teens having babies and would encourage their teen to "get rid of it" . Just as most would expect a 30-something mother of 3 to get a job if her husband dies or runs off or something.

I agree that it is misrepresenting her position to say that she wants women with already born children to put up their kids for adoption, if that's not what she said. However, since she acknowledges that she is clarifying her position in the comments, because she wasn't clear initially, it's quite possible people thought she meant all women should give up their children rather than work.

But the bigger point-- WTF -- why on earth would you think most people would encourage a young teen to abort or adopt out their baby? The people I know would support the teen in keeping and raising her child, if that's what she wanted. It's just as much her right child to parent her child whether she is 16 or 30.

[littlemommy]

Can I just express my delight at seeing a (part time, at least) Lori apologist! So rare and precious!!

Which commenter are you? I'll tell you which one I am!

[Firiel]

Can I just express my delight at seeing a (part time, at least) Lori apologist! So rare and precious!!

Which commenter are you? I'll tell you which one I am!

:lol: :lol:

Yeah, I was going to say that this is the first time I've seen a Lori defense here.

I'M usually the one that is the queen at looking at the other side of the story and giving fundies the benefit of the doubt... but not Lori. Never Lori.

Although sometimes when her deficient intellect is really obvious, I feel a little bit like I'm killing the wounded gazelle. But then I remember that "dumb" and "evil" are not mutually exclusive.

[usmcmom]

I found the comment. I also found that you failed to present a complete picture.

I don't why but the last few days on this forum has been like reading the worst rags that pass as journalism. Inaccurate. Half truths. Half the story. Anything to prey on people's emotions and get them all lathered up with hate, never mind if it is actually true.

Lori explains she was thinking of young teen mothers. Be honest. How many young teen moms do you know and would you encourage them to have an abortion or adopt out the baby? Or do you regularly truly encourage teens to be keep their children when there is likely no way the mom can actually provide for the child?

Here's the c/p "I would definitely not support a mother with older children who was abandoned or divorced to give up her children for adoption. I'm sorry I wasn't clear with my response."

Her presentation isn't that great, but the truth of this matter is that most people do not support teens having babies and would encourage their teen to "get rid of it" . Just as most would expect a 30-something mother of 3 to get a job if her husband dies or runs off or something.

Regardless of what Lori meant by her first response, it clearly illustrates her narrow world view. If indeed she did mean "teen mothers," why in the world doesn't she realize that single mothers come in all ages, races and socio economic classes?!?

I was not a teen mother, nor was my daughter; so I don't have first hand knowledge of what it's all about. I do know that my friends and family who faced the pregnancy of a teenage daughter have all said basically the same thing "I cannot encourage adoption because I don't want to know I have a grandbaby out there who I will never meet." And so everyone I know has found a way to help their daughter raise the child. A teen pregnancy is the perfect time for that all important family help that Lori talks about so much. You know. When older moms and aunts are supposed to be available to help with young kids? Why in the world would Lori immediately suggest adoption when SHE is the one who thinks family should stand ready and willing to help in a crisis!?!

I think Lori's suggestion to "give the baby away" is more her idea of punishment for that "sinful" teen than any real desire on her part to give Godly advice for a very difficult situation.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Did you? Maybe you have a Delorean and didn't realize what might happen?

No response to what Lori saying is really just the same thing that a lot of people from a lot of different backgrounds say?

Who really encourages teens to get pregnant and have babies? Who really encourages them to keep rather than abort or adopt out? Maybe I time warped somewhere to a society that thinks a single young unemployed female still under the care of her parents make a good candidate for motherhood.

Can you, JHeathen, discuss the issue at hand or will this be more drama tactics rather than an accurate, truthful discussion?

Because I read Lori's blog and she didn't say to give away your kids.

Well, I'd argue that some segments of evangelical movements come pretty close to encouraging teen motherhood. Yes, the official doctrine is no sex before marriage. They also know that the official doctrine is often ignored, and actively campaign against giving teens any useful knowledge or access to birth control. While the hard-core fundies tend to keep teens on a really tight leash so that there's little opportunity to ever get pregnant before marriage, the general evangelicals don't follow that approach. Studies clearly show that they are just as likely to have premarital sex, but less likely to use birth control when they do. It adds up to more teen pregnancy.

Article from Christian magazine quoting stats that 80% of single evangelicals 18-29 have had sex: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/re ... s-doing-it

When they do have sex, teens who took a "purity pledge" are less likely to use birth control: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01588.html

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/ ... x-blue-sex

[whoviana]

Why don't you give up your children Lori! So that they can grow up in loving, caring same-gender families that want children desperately.