"(or someone in an otherwise committed relationship with a person having the integrity to stand by them lacking a legal contract to do so)"

I am not sure of the contradiction here. It has been nagging at me all day. Please explain.

Mr. Tabor, your statements elude any semblance to logic. You are educated enough to know this before you said it. To infer that a couple are better prepared and have more "integrity" is incredibly biased and obviously meant to bolster the institution. The rea issue is those who became pregnant and then a burden to society. The fact they fall into the statistic of being unmarried has more to do with age, education and social placement than marriage. Marriage has no logical or provable basis as a benefit to children or society. As for children, the provable cause and effect are single parent households and their effect on chldren. While this is not a constant, many of these households are a result of divorce. Your statements are old fashioned and an attempt to paint one groups beliefs as the correct 'moral' path. It lacks understanding and tolerance of others. Now please, go sit by the rotary dial telephone and Model T and wait your turn.

I personally don't care how many out-of-wedlock children she punches out-none of my business.

Where I have a problem is, when they plop their butts down in a chair at social services and expect the taxpayers to provide them with public assistance to underwrite their so-called "choices", hand over food stamps, health care and oh, by the way, because I couldn't finish high-school, let the taxpayers pay for my kids daycare, too.

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. You want to have kids, fine. But don't expect the taxpayers to underwrite your choices.

'Pro-life" is a myth. The supposed pro-lifers kept pretty silent when baby Sun Hudson was deliberately killed for the convenience of the state in Texas.

Marriage is, in one sense, a religious sacrament, but it is also a legal and economic entity. It is a binding commitment by two adults to work together for the benefit of any children coming from the marriage, and to act as an economic team in the marketplace.

A married person (or someone in an otherwise committed relationship with a person having the integrity to stand by them lacking a legal contract to do so) has someone to care for them when they are ill or out of work and to spread the risk of bad luck or error in their life choices. A partnership of two people acting together is more stable than two each out for themselves.

A child is safer and has a more stable support for those years he cannot fend for himself inside marriage than out.

Marriage has proved itself to be the basis for success for a long, long time, and should not be dismissed as no longer relevant or only symbolic.

Could someone tell me how a wedding ring makes a difference? Apparently wearing religious jewlery makes it easier to support a child. Funny, one poster below states that the "difference" in her case was that she was married when she became pregnant. Then she states she raised the child alone. I do not believe Jesus would have advocated a marriage if the goverment controlled it as they do now. After all, the goverment killed him didn't they?

Both of my sons were "unplanned". The difference is, I was married, had a job, and raised them myself without assistance. My children and their mother KNOW who the daddy is...ME. Are you pro-life? If so, get in the line with the so-called "millions" who are willing to adopt. Oh, and you don't get a choice...you get the next child available, regardless of race, defects or crack cocaine addiction. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The only pro-lifer I respect was Jerry Falwell. He said, "if you're pregnant, come to me. I'll give you free room and board and a college education, and we'll place your child in a loving family." At least he had a solution, not just a lot of hot air from the pulpit. THAT is what Jesus would do.

The unborn babies are not "lost" to abortion, they are murdered. The millions made from recycling aborted unborn babies suggest that the medical industry knows exactly where they are. They are in recycled plasma, blood etc. Children are intended, or the miracle of birth would not have happened. The answer to ethical sexual behavior is not after the so-called consequence of pregnancy, but before the miracle of conception. In other words, once a woman is pregnant she has already made her choice. There are literally millions of people waiting to adopt, but Planned Parenthood is not funded (into the multi-millions) to promote adoption, only abortion. It takes no time to research the true intention of Planned Parenthood and its desire to socially engineer its better version of society. In fact, the under funded Tidewater Crisis Pregnancy Center offers viable solutions (choices); including adoption connections, to women considering abortions. The anti-choice is the “You should get an abortion and consider nothing else” mentality. If economic hardship makes murder legal then you argue against 90% of the world. Who gives the aborted babies a choice? If it's ok to kill babies then...

These Children deserve to be sucked through a tube at high pressure? Sorry, don't buy that.

It takes two to tango. It is not like Condoms and Pills, and the word NO were invented yesterday.

Now, I don't stand for a law banning abortions. But I wish we could legislate common sense. I'm tired of the excuse that it's a mistake.

Ooops, there went the race card again. And to add to that, we also try to blame the public and communities for the reason young unwed girls keep getting pregnant. OK, the public "stresses" these young unwed girls into trysts that produce illegitimate children who cannot be controlled in the classroom and wind up illiterate and pregnant like the mother. Got it!! Why do I keep hearing "my baby daddy" in my head?