Great comments again. I didn’t share all the details of our income, education or budget, because, honestly, I am more interested in my own principles and motives (and examining both of those) than in my own sob story. I don’t think the issue is how badly one needs assistance. What matters is if it is moral to take from some to give to others. Period. Should the rich give to the poor? yes. Should we force them to do this? I believe the answer to this is no.
Would I steal bread to feed my children if necessary? YES! (but I would never think that my need somehow makes stealing right).
But I feel I might have given only half of the story before, so here are some more details (especially in response to Sylwia’s relevant suggestions as to how my husband and I could solve our problems). (Sorry Dick!)
Dick has a masters degree from Columbia University. We chose to attend the most prestigious and most costly university to which he was accepted (out of seven). We really wanted to go there, and to live in New York City. We learned a lot and had great experiences, but it was an unwise decision financially.
We do not qualify for WIC. We probably never have and hopefully never will. If I had given the WIC people Dick’s paystub from his primary job right after Spot’s birth, they might have decided that we qualified. But my husband also does freelance work and often teaches to supplement our income (rather than having me earn a wage). He makes a good salary, and is well-liked and appreciated by his company. He has many opportunities for advancement without further formal education (though he is always learning new things in his field).
Now, I said that I feel it is wrong for us to force the rich to give to the poor. What about this scenario: Jane has a hard time making her budget stretch to meet her obligations and feed her children. If she could retain the amount of taxes she and her husband pay in income, social security, medicaid, property and sales taxes, she would much more easily be able to feed her children. But, she is not allowed to keep the money that her husband has earned. The government decides that other people need that money more than she does, and so they take it and distribute it as they please.
I’ve written earlier that I don’t buy prepared baby food. It’s a good thing I feel confident in my ability to nourish my baby without prepared baby food, because the truth is that I cannot afford prepared baby food (among other things, unless I go further into debt). Is it right or moral that the government decides that my money should not be spent to feed my children but should instead be spent to feed someone else’s children? It doesn’t matter how worthy or needy any other child is: Isn’t my first responsibility to my own children?
How could it be moral for the government to make it harder for me to fulfill my obligation to my own children? Just as it is immoral that the tax code privileges working mothers over stay-at-home mothers as I mentioned in my original post. If my husband could pay me a salary for “nannying” his children and then deduct $5000 a year off his tax bill (not his taxable income–his actual tax owed), we would struggle much less.
So, the question is: is it moral to force the not-so-rich, in fact, the “almost-qualify-for-WIC-themselves,” to give to the “poor”? If and when we take assistance from the government, I hope that we consider that we are taking food out of one child’s mouth in order to put it in our own. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t do exactly that if my children’s need were so great and I had no other option. Of course I would; I’m a parent. But that money comes from somewhere, from someone. It comes from me.
Subscribe by email
Shannon, you and Brad would get along sooooooooooooooo well.
In fact, I have been having him read your blog, I don’t know why he hasn’t commented.
So, the real argument against government assistance is that it is not voluntary (we don’t have the choice of whether or not to help someone)—funds are taken out of our income (as taxes). So if one person has a hard time feeding his or her family it doesn’t matter, that person still has to pay to feed other people’s families?
Seen in that light, family and church assistance are far superior!
Really great post Shannon. You got to the crux of the matter. The Lord’s way has never been to force other people to do good. He implores and commands, but never forces us. Government assistance takes away our ability to willingly give by forcing us to give. We should give, it is a fundamental principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but if we are forced to, then what have we gained by it? I am not trying to imply that you don’t want to give because you are greedy. I fully trust your judgement (more than the government’s) on how much you can give and how much you should give. I said this before, but I will say it again. I would rather pay less in taxes and more in fast offerings, because fast offerings are voluntary.
Shannon – you know I agree with you on most things, and I agree in principle with this post. Before I say any more I need everyone to know that I am seriously unlearned and ignorant in the ways of politics & current events. I am terrible and should really pay more attention to things so I can vote knowledgeably and actually make a small difference, using the system that I love and admire, despite it’s shortcomings. Okay, caveat over. I agree in principle that it is wrong for Americans to be forced to pay taxes to assist those on welfare – because it is not a perfect system and many people are undeserving and take advantage of it. Many, of course, are truly needy and deserving. I think the church is a much better forum for giving & receiving food and such. Anyway – too bad so many people that struggle to care for their own families have to help subsidize others. But I am a firm believer in taxes for all. Every once in a while the government does use our tax money for something worthwhile. Roads, schools, military, emergency services, some research – those are all things I am happy to pay taxes for. To me, Shannon, you should help convince all your blog readers to push for tax reforms that somehow separate the things that are for the whole of society (as mentioned) and the things that will only be used for some (like welfare stuff). Sorry for my stupidity in this area – but I’m sure you get my drift. That’s why I like the church system – everyone gives 10% and the church uses that as directed by the prophet (through the Lord). But I can always voluntarily give extra to any specific causes that I choose. Too bad taxes aren’t like that. I know a lot of people, including myself, who would be more generous if not forced into paying.
i think these are good points, Tara, but, i don’t think i said anywhere that i thought all taxes were bad. i am pretty sure that i want to pay taxes for military protection and roads. stuff like pbs and npr are not what i think govt should be forcing me to pay for. if i were too poor (or principled) to have a tv or a radio, should i have to pay to help produce tv and radio programs? that doesn’t make sense. schools are another issue. hmmm. i don’t even know for sure how i feel about that. it has been very different having avery home for the summer than i thought it would be. it has been great! right now homeschooling is not looking so bad. if i were to homeschool, should the govt force me to pay for other people’s kids’ public education?
(of course, then we could argue about it being better/cheaper/easier to pay to educate other people’s kids rather than to incarcerate them)
May I just say that this debate is taking a very different turn from ethics to politics and the role of government. I’m starting to see lots of the typical right wing republican/libratarian views that most mormons have.
it’s easy to say that we don’t need the goverment in our lives, taking our money away when we live in a country where things run pretty smoothly. we all have utilities, no sewege on the streets, no leprosy we can catch, no major political instability and rampant crime, disease. ect. all these things we take for granted and we say our lives would better if we paid the gov no money and we would do much more good ourselves. than why don’t things work that smoothly in ultra capitalistic countries like India. still sewege in the streets, and there are beggars in the streets, and rampant crime and bribery, and starving women and children. they must have generous people too. why doesn’t generosity solve all the problems that they have ?
maybe our government does play a good role in our lives.
of course there is lots of waste in our government. just two nights ago I went to a meeting to listen to Mitt Romney, a businessman who is running for president. when he became the governor of massachusets, he said they had 2 parks and rec departments. they did the same things, but two people were getting paid for the same job. they also had 3 highway departments, and there 3 people were getting paid with tax dollars to do the same job. so he consolidated, and cut out waste and cut taxes, and instead of a deficit, massachusets now has a surplus every year.
sound to me lika a businessmans needs to run this county and not stop all off the government programns that we have, but to consolidate them and make them more efficient.
I mainy went to the meeting to get a good picture with Mitt. to me life is all about getting a good picture. I got my picture, but I was also very impressed with Mitt.
He refused to take a salary while he was governor. and he pledged to donate his whole presidential salary to charity when he becomes president.
mittromney.com
sylwia
shannon can you poste my picture with mitt? I’ll email it to you.
Sylwia,
i think if more people considered political questions in an ethical light, we would have a more ethical government and society. if we consider government and politics from the aspect of expediency rather than principle, then they are not be subject to ethical concerns. but i do not choose to view government and political questions as somehow separate from ethics and morality.
um, you know that one of the biggest complaints detractors of Mitt Romney have is that he was hostile to these welfare programs and entitlements as governor, and they expect he would be as president. do you support him anyway because you figure you will no longer need those programs by the time he was in office?
here are a few of your comments:
next time you say things like this or feel motivated to “stir the pot” or “flaunt” your govt asst, you might consider that there may be people listening to you who honestly struggle with their finances because they work hard enough to not qualify for govt asst themselves and yet are not financially rewarded enough (yet) to easily meet their obligations, and that those obligations include paying taxes for the very govt asst that you choose to flaunt.
I don’t know how much you know about what mitt romney did as governor, but he did not get rid of gov assistance. in fact massachusetts is now the only state that gives health care to every single person, thanks to mitt. and it does not cost the government anything. he is not for getting rid of assistance, as much as he is for making it more efficient. and that’s why I think he would be great. we have no idea how our taxes get wasted.
Let me give you an example that Josh my husband gave me. most right wing conservatives are big on giving the mililtary money, because afterall we need to protect our country. what they dont know is how all of their taxes are wasted in the military. when my husband was in the national guard for 11 years he saw receits for hammers that the army bought. they were regular hammers that you can buy in home depot for about 3 dollars. the army paid for them 500 dollars each, for no particular reason. just because they are the army, and someone offered them the hammers for that much, and hey if the army needs hammers we better give it to them.
to me that’s the problem in gov– wasting our taxes. it’s not the programs that we have but how we waste money in them and how programs are duplicated. that’s the problems that Mitt solved in massachusetts and i hope he will solve on a national level.
and besides, now that i have a picture with mitt romney, he better become president, or all of my efforts to obtain that picutre would have been for nothing:)
sylwia
The fact that we pay taxes is exactly why I felt ok w/ using medicaid/WIC during my pregnancies. I will pay off the cost of both children’s births long before the end of my lifetime. At the time we could barely afford to keep food on the table, but thankfully there was some sort of assistance to help us get those basics- food and health care.
Hey Shannon, just curious, are you comparing accepting WIC/Foodstamps to stealing bread?
Anyway, I am curious as to how much you actually pay in taxes that makes you so upset with being taxed. I understand your reasonings, don’t agree with all of them, but I would think by being a homeowner, having three kids, and not having much money (what I gather from your postings) that you would have plenty of deductions and all to get a large refund at the end of the year of what you paid? Right?
Ryan and I grossed $44,000 last year (both of us were working full time until August…if we were making this now, we would not need WIC/Foodstamps). Anyway, with our income, one child, and our only major deduction that we had was $2300 for our move (deduction, not credit), we did not have to pay any taxes after regular deductions that everyone has. We got everything we paid back. Note: We were not able to deduct school tuition, or our adoption legal fees, so these do not even apply for 2006.
I understand if you do not want to share this info, but I think it would help me, and maybe others, understand why you are so frustrated with taxes.
Anyway, I love Mitt Romney, I totally had a crush on one of his sons growing up…I always looked forward to the tri-stake dances as a teen so I could see him and get the guts to talk to him. He was in the Boston Stake, the next stake over from mine. My father is a huge supporter of his and goes to many of his fundraiser. I get it that you think he has flip-flopped or whatever on some topics…who hasn’t. My question, knowing that everyone in politics has flip-flopped on one issue or another, and knowing Mitt’s morals and beliefs of being Mormon, do you another candidate is better than him? If so, who and why?
Correction on my last sentance…I left a word out. I meant to write: t…do you think that another candidate is better than him (Mitt)? If so, who and why?
thanks danielle for continuing the politics topic and the mitt romney topic. mitt’s son tagg came to my ward a few weeks ago. he’s been campaining in iowa for his father. he looked like he was in his twenties, but he told us he was 37. what’s the deal with that? how come the romneys are so young looking and hansome?
which one of his sons did you have a crush on?
and by the way, we get a 1300 dollar per month stipend and some taxes are deducted. we not only got all of our taxes back but we got 4000 extra dollars back as tax credits.
so I also dont see how the struggling poor are overtaxed….
sylwia
Gladis–i am glad, too, that you are able to obtain asst. My original point, and the thing that i feel even more strongly about after all of this discussion, is that i (shannon) cannot seek asst from anyone until i change my perception of my needs/wants and do all that i can to meet my own needs (and forget about my “wants”). i have been extremely guilty of sloppy spending and thinking that i should enjoy a higher standard of living than i can afford. that is a fault of mine that i am trying to remedy. i also think that, as a matter of principle, i (shannon) should ask my family for help before other sources–if only because asking my parents requires me to do some soul-searching and confront, honestly, what i really need versus want. from what i have seen of you and your kids, i don’t think you have this problem (sloppy spending) like i do.
Danielle–i pay enough taxes (social security, sales, property, medicaid, income etc) that it would make a big difference if i didn’t have to, or if they were reduced. only income tax is affected by deductions or dependents; as you guessed, we pay much more in the other taxes at this time, bec. our income is not high and we have a lot of deductions. property tax and social security tax are particularly onerous.
i am not against asking for help, and to answer your first question, here’s my list (again) of who i do/would ask for asst as needed, with the place that stealing would occupy in that heirarchy: myself (and spouse), my family, my church, the govt, stealing. my point about stealing is that i understand a parent doing ANYTHING to feed her child, because i would too.
here is another question for us: should the government give tax breaks to a wage earner with many dependents while giving no break to a wage earner with none?
on the one hand, the wage earner with many dependents should get a large tax break because she/he has to feed more people,
but
on the other hand, the wage earner with many dependents should pay more taxes because she/he has more people who will be using those things (roads, schools, military protection) that the taxes pay for.
so which is fair? deductions for dependents or paying more taxes for each dependent? each is “unfair” to some people in some sense. honestly, if we believe we should pay for what we have (which i say i do), then i would have to say that, the more dependents i have, the more taxes i should pay. (that would bite!).
so, maybe the Lord’s way really would be good–a flat tax rate applied to everyone, no breaks, credits or deductions, and then an exhortation to give more as you can. oh, wait, that is an ethical and moral idea applied to govt and politics. sorry Sylwia.
oh, on the candidate, i am not sure which one i will vote for. i do know that i will not vote for romney because he is handsome or mormon. if i do vote for him, it will be due to something else.
shannon
you must have misunderstoon my ethics/politics comment. What I was saying is that we were no longer discussing what is right and wrong but what is the right and wrong role of government.
does that make make original comment any more clear? please don’t imply that i don’t believe that ethics apply in government. of course they do.
sylwia
Hey Shannon, I was teasing you with my first question on Wic being compared to stealing….forgot the lol. I get your view and although I disagree, don’t really want to comment on WIC stuff anymore.
Taxes, I know a lot about because I worked at Fidelity Investments for 5 years and had many, too many tax seminars, trainings, and boring meetings on them…. maybe you guys need to go to an accountant or have me do your taxes, because you should be getting a lot more back, like all of it! With three kids, all the fixes to your fence, your mortgage interest, student loan interest, etc…is all deductable. The taxes you mentioned “social security, sales, property, medicaid, income etc” My response, there is a sales tax deduction, either a standard deduction, or you can calculate it yourself, there is not a state income tax in florida, so we are lucky here. Property taxes, this is your choice, you chose to own, not rent, so this is not a mandatory tax, if you don’t want to pay it, don’y buy a house. But these taxes too are deductable. SSI & Medicaid, remember, this is not just for poor people like me that are on WIC, it is for elderly people (over 65 ususally) foster children, and disabled people . Most of these people that use the service totally paid this tax through their working years, and are getting the benefits of it now. Are you not going to accept SSI or Medicaid when you are at the age to receive it because of your beliefs? You pay it so you can hopefully get it when you are old enough to. Its kinda the same principle as WIC and all, it comes from taxpayer money. Should these people be asking their kids to support them, or their church instead of getting their Social Secuirty? Hmmm…
Anyway, I don’t think there is anyone that is more honest or capable of being a good president that is in it for the people than Mitt, everyone has their own agenda, but I think that Mitt would do the best job. I know you can find things wrong with every candidates…you ay that he flip-flopped, but the others are worse so he has my vote. I know you have mentioned several times to me about Mitt changing his mind on abortion….here is his response taken from Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1619212-2,00.html)
“On abortion, Romney says he simply changed his mind. He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn’t believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. “It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,” Romney says. “We learn with experience. We gain perspective over time, but the principles remain the same. I have a number of principles, and the principles remain the same.”
So maybe now that you know his reasons behind it, it wont bother you anymore.
Sylwia – Ben was the one that I had the crush on growing up. He was 2 Years older than me, so I always thought it would be perfect timing, when he got off his mission, I would be graduating high school….so dumb….he probably doesn’t even remember me. Or should I say, I hope he doesn’t remember me because I was probably such a dork. Anyway, he has a great family, and yes they are all very handsome! Good genes I guess. I always think that if I had a ton of money, I would look good all the time too, you know.
Oh, to answer your question too, “so which is fair? deductions for dependents or paying more taxes for each dependent? each is “unfair” to some people in some sense.” Definately deductions for dependants. I believe that the more dependants that you have, the more costs that you have to raise, clothe, and feed them, so you should get deductions for them. Say Tom and Ryan made the same amount of money, Tom has a stay at home wife with 3 kids. Ryan has a stay at home wife with 1 kid. Ryan should definately pay more taxes as he does not have as many kids to support. When those kids are grown and out of the house, they will be paying their own taxes for their share of the roads, school, militarty, etc. Thats just how I feel though.
ok. why was Mitt Romney, a “Mormon,” ever pro-abortion? that bothers me even more than the flopping.
on things like your argument about property tax, you could also say to me, well, kids, that is your choice to have kids; if you don’t want to pay for them, don’t have them. i believe it is much better financially and in other ways to strive to buy a house rather than rent, but you’re right, that is my option, and i need to take every pro and con into account when making decisions like that.
we did deduct our one big item of sales tax last year (the minivan). that was awesome! but when you say that property tax is deductible — dang, i just had to check my turbotax file, hoping that i had somehow forgotten to deduct this, but, i didn’t. oh well, at least i don’t have to file an amended return, i guess.
SSI and medicare (and medicaid) are just a big mess. i heard once that our belief that the current recipients of ss are simply getting back now what they once put in, that this a big misconception, but i don’t have the reference or numbers on that, so i will research that topic more (for my own sake anyway).
Good point on the number of kids you have….but luckily the way that taxes are now, chosing to have a kid gets you a deduction…the more the merrier right? Buying a house gets you more taxes.
I bought my car in NH way before we moved to florida, or knew we were moving to Florida. But thankfully, NH does not have sales tax, so I did not have to pay any on my car.
I agree that SSI and Medicare are a big mess, I totally know what you are talking about, but if they are still around when you are old enough (they probably wont be with the funding and all that is running out), will you accept it?
yes, i will/would accept SSI and medicare, because they are “for everyone” as i was saying about roads and schools and military protection (how these things differ from wic and medicaid, which are only for a few).
but what about Romney’s previously being pro-abortion. why did he ever have that position?
I think the term pro abortion is misleading. he never believed that an abortion was ok. what he questionsed was wether it’s the goverments job to prohibit abortion. I feel the same way about this issue. after being governor and seeing how people have come not to value life becasue of roe vs wade, he has decided that it is the role of gov to prohibit abortion.
i myself am not for abortion, but i’m still not sure if it’s the role of govermnet to prohibit it either. I’m still filp flopping on the issue myself.
again that’s what I mean when I say that’a a political issue and not an ethical one. there are rights and wrongs that i strongly believe in. i havent figured out on all these issue if the government is supposed to enforce these rights and wrongs. I value freedom, so often I’m against the government intervention on many such issues. I’m a flip flopper when it comes to knowing when it’s the government job to do stuff and when to stay out of our lives.
sylwia
thanks for answering that Sylwia. You answered that perfectly…better than I would have.
so, about that whole Mitt pro-abortion issue…. my husband heard him on Glenn Beck discussing the matter. He is pretty private about it, but what it comes down to is that his sister-in-law died from an illegal abortion. he prayed about it, felt that it was ok to be pro choice. It’s kind of like prohibition If someone wants alcohol they are going to find it. If someone wants to have an abortion, they are going to find a way to have one, so you might as well make em legal so they are safe and recieve the proper medical care. Don’t get my views wrong though- i’m very pro-life, but i can see for a second where he was coming from. Once he was truly educated on what an abortion is and does, he changed his views- and has stuck with them ever since.
Is it the role of government to prohibit (and prosecute) murderers, thieves, etc?
i’ll tell you what the role of government is; i have just learned this today for sure.
it is the role of government to come over to my house and POTTY-TRAIN Callie, because otherwise they/it are going to have a death by frustration and a sad little girl to deal with!!!!!
Marcy
it’s hard to respond to such an obvious question that you asked. of course the answer is yes it is the governments role to protect us against thieve and murderers.
but this brings up another issue altogether. and that’s what I think you are getting at. many members of the church believe that abortion is the same as murder. sorry to dissappoint you, but it is not the same thing. not even in the church handbook….
sylwia
Well, I certainly think if government protects us against thieves–who just steal stuff–it could protect us against abortionists–that steal ______ (life in some form????)
marcy
i haven’t recently heard of an abortionist breaking into a pregnant woman’s house and by force stealing her embryo. so maybe theft does not apply here.
i’m not arguing with you about abortion destroying life, just if it’s the role of the goverment to prohibit it. like i said, i’m undecided on the matter, so i can’t really defend either side. i guess i better not run for public office………..
sylwia
Shannon, just do what Rixa does and hold her over the toilet until she goes. Don’t forget to make a whooshing sound every time, and in like 3 months, she will be totally potty trained… Let me know if it works, then you can start on Lucy and I will work on Liam. Whooossshhhh.
Stealing life from the baby-to-be.
what i think Marcy means (forgive me if i’m wrong) is that abortion is at least the stealing of life from the baby-to-be by the mother-to-be (the abortionist is merely an accomplice).
two points about abortion or “choice” that i think are interesting (ok, you’ve sucked me in, and i’ll play, but only as long as it is a conversation).
on the argument that it is her body and so a woman should have either (both) the “privacy” or the “right” to do what she wants with her body. this argument does not convince me because usually the argument against abortion is that life has begun even before birth, or, in Mormon terms anyway, that the spirit enters the body some time before birth. but this argument (the “it’s my body”) argument doesn’t even talk about life or spirit, it’s concerned with corporeal existence, and how could you say that there is not another corporeal body of matter in question? there is another body (with or without life or spirit) inside the body of the woman, no? roe v. wade was decided on the “privacy” issue as i understand it. but in terms of “privacy” or “right,” there is a foreign piece of matter that is not “my body.”
on the argument of “choice,” i have to say that i am certainly pro-choice. a woman (and a man) have a choice of whether to have unprotected sex or sex when having a baby would not be prudent (protection being never 100%). that is the choice that is made, and then there are consequences. why do people think that they should be able to make whatever choices they want about the consequences that logically follow their first choice? if i have unsafe sex with someone with AIDS and get AIDS myself, but then decide i don’t like that consequence, am i then able to say, “hey, i choose not to have AIDS”? wouldn’t that be nice — if we could choose not only our actions, but choose which consequences we get from our actions.
(and of course, in this argument the 3 cases i assume Sylwia refers to in “the handbook” as being exceptions to the view of abortion as murder: rape, incest and danger to the mother, obviously, no woman chooses to be raped or the victim of incest or to be in danger at the expense of her baby, and so these fit in well with my view of choice, i.e. those women in these three cases would be making their first choice on the abortion issue, and in my view, that is right, they have a choice to make).
not to beat a dead horse (or resort to too many cliches, i hope), but Sylwia, how could you think that it is government’s role to feed you and your family but not to prosecute those who would promote the elective ending of an innocent life or an innocent clump of cells?
Danielle — thanks. i don’t know why i didn’t think of that — wait, it could be because Callie weighs over 30 pounds, and i can’t seem myself suspending her for long periods of time over a basin.
if only i had started on the elimination communication when she was 2 weeks old!
Shannon- don’t do that! (Force the potty training), That is a big mistake, I should know, I tried it! Max was almost all potty trained but would not poop, so I buckled down and decided to force the issue. I kept him on the toilet for half a day. The result was he went back entirely to diapers and wouldn’t accept any hugs from me for a long time. He finally just started doing it on his own, he had to have the power to make his own decision to do it. Some kids you just can’t force like that. Jessamine on the other hand, saw Max using the potty and wearing underwear and wanted to do the same thing, she has been a piece of cake. I never imagined she would want to potty train this early after what I went through with Max, but she’s almost there already, and not even 2! When she started sitting on the potty and such I had no expectations, and was really surprised wen she actually started going on it. So I would say just back off, give her some space and time and she will do it.
Marie,
i totally agree on the not forcing potty training. the problem at our house is that Callie is wanting to do it, but i am too busy doing other things (nursing the baby, making meals, etc). so Callie does it herself (takes off her diaper and climbs on and off the pot multiple times) and what results is a big mess. i honestly feel right now that if i had the time and energy to concentrate on her and what she is already doing/feeling, then she would be completely trained in a week or so. so it is me that is the problem (well, and all my other responsibilities), not Callie.
I just have to see my comment score go up to 100! I gave up on potty training Ali. She doesn’t care about sitting in pee or poop so there’s no point right now. Maybe when she sees Callie she’ll get excited. I can’t imagine a kid trained before age 2–I’m jealous, Marie.
We’re struggling with naps now because Ali has finally decided she can climb out of her crib anytime she wants to. So maybe I’ll put her in her own room–isn’t that what you did with Callie?
While reading this lengthy collection of comments, I was intriguied [sic] about the topic of abortion. Coincedentally I just wrote a perswuasive essay on this topic as an assignment from school. I would love to “discuss” or “debate” this issue with anyone… I would especcially [sic] challenge the comment made by Sylwia, “many members of the church believe that abortion is the same as murder. sorry to dissappoint you, but it is not the same thing.” I dissagre with this so much, but will only go on to express my reasoning as Shannon permits. (This being her site and all, and I don’t know if this was the desired direction of this thread)
Ryan
hi Ryan,
i think it’s great that you have an interest in thinking about and discussing this and other topics. in internet terms, this thread is old and dead, and not mourned too much (by me). you’re welcome to put forth your ideas, and if people wish to agree with or counter them, that is fine, too.
it might be even better if you started a blog of your own and then you could write timely posts about whatever you are learning and thinking about on a daily/weekly basis. if you start a blog (by yourself, or with karin or the parents, or your friends), i’ll put a link to it and i’ll come see what you’re talking about and respond to you as/when i feel moved to.
on your own blog, you would have control over what gets posted originally, what threads get started, and some influence over the direction they take. also, i think blogs are fantastic as a journal of sorts and as a conversation tool. tom is almost evangelical in his conviction that everyone should have a blog. so go for it! (i’d do blogger.com if i were starting out).
i would love to see what you’re thinking of and up to!